THE  ROBERT  E.  COWAN  COLLECTION 

I'RKSEXTED   TO   THE 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CHLIFORNIR   • 

r.Y 

C.  P,  HUNTINGTON 

dUNE.  18Q7, 

flccession  No.  ^0  Ij^      Class  No.  ^tM'Q 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2007  with  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.prg/details/biblepoliticsorhOOscotrich 


THE  BIBLE  M  POLITICS: 


OR,     AN    HUMBLE    PLEA    FOR 


(6i[ual,  lerfcrt,  Absolute  f^eligioas  Jratlom, 


AND   AGAINST   ALL 


SECTARIANISM  IN  OUR  PUBLIC  SCHOOLS. 


By  Rev.  W.  A.  SCOTT,  D.  D. 


•  Voii.  (>l«  Athenians,  1  fmhrnrc  and  love,  but  1  will  fthey  (Jod  rather  than  you.*' 

i  S'n-rnli  .<'  Hin'nn  Sfu't'fli.^ 

J*'«stori,  Po^^feri,  vfstra  res  ajuitur, 

Advift-titP. 

iy>«tt>rity,  posterity,  this  is  a  concern  of  yours. 

Be  attentive. 

[  From  nu  i»jicrif>fii>M  on  Ihn  mud  from  Xuplejt  to  VanuriuK.  irtirniufi  (lie  ptopk  to  liewtirr 
of  eriipttnnx.] 

'•The  inngistrate  is  not  to  meddle  with  religion,  or  matters  of  conscience,  ncr  compel  men  to 
this  or  tliHt  form  of  religion,  because  Christ  is  the  King  and  lawgiver  of  the  Church  and 
Conscience.'- — [The  BapUid  Chnfesxion  of  Failh  of  1611,  the.  rerjj  samp  i/ear  in  whi'-h  our  present 
Ktiflhsh  version  of  the  HtHe  ii-(ts  fp're>i  to  the  worl't.] 


SAX    FRANCISCO: 

11.    H.    BANCROI    r     iV     CO. 

I85n. 


I 


TEE  BIBLE  AID  POLITICS: 


OR^    AN    HUMBLE   PLEA    FOR 


€pal,  f  Mat,  liteolttte  lldigtous  ^mUm, 


AND   AGAINST   ALL 


SECTARIANISM  IN  OUR  PUBLIC  SCHOOLS. 


By  Ret.  W.  A.  SCOTT,  D.  D. 


"Ton,  Oh  Athenians,  I  embrace  and  love,  but  I  will  obey  Qod  rather  than  you." 

[Socrates'  Dying  Speeeh.'\ 

Posteri,  Posteri,  vestra  res  agitur, 

Advortite. 

Posterity,  posterity,  this  is  a  concern  of  yours, 

Be  attentive. 

[  Prom  an  inscription  on  the  road  from  Naples  to  Vesuvius,  warning  tlie  people  to  htwan 
of  eruptions.] 

"  The  magistrate  is  not  to  meddle  with  religion,  or  matters  of  conscience,  nor  compel  men  to 
this  or  that  form  of  religion,  because  Christ  is  the  King  and  lawgiver  of  the  Church  and 
Conscience." — [The  Baptist  Confession  of  Faith  of  1611,  the  very  same  year  in  which  our  present 
English  version  of  the  Bible  was  given  to  the  world.] 


SAN  FRANCISCO: 

H.   H.  .BANCROFT    &    CO. 

1869. 


y  a  /  f^ 
Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress  in  the  year  of  our  Lord,  1859, 

By  W.  a.  SCOTT, 

In  the  Clerk's  office  of  the  District  Court  of  the  United  States,  for  the 
Northern  District  of  California. 


ADVERTISExMENT. 


'  Audi  alteram  partem.~^M>*     th  sides." 


For  some  years,  and  particularly  of  late,  our  country  has  been  agitated 
about  "  Sunday  laws,"  "  Chaplains,"  and  ''  the  Bible  in  the  National  Schools." 
From  Maine  to  the  Pacific,  the  religious  papers  are  more  or  less  given  to  the 
controversy,  and  very  many  pulpits  urge  it  on.  From  the  Episcopalian  Bishop 
of  Vermont,  who  has  written  a  book  designed  to  show  that  religion  is  con- 
nected with  everything  that  is  American,  especially  his  religion,  down  to  the 
Colporteur,  who  distributes  •'  tracts  on  Popery,"  and  carries  round  petitions 
to  the  Legislature  for  Sunday  laws,  there  is  a  tendency  to  unite  religious  and 
political  matters,  and  to  promote  Christianity  by  legislative  aid,  which  I  must 
consider  derogatory  to  the  Church  of  Christ,  injurious  to  the  Gospel,  and  of 
most  dangerous  tendencies  to  the  peace  of  society. 

I  understand  the  compulsory  use  of  the  Bible  in  our  schools  to  mean  teach- 
ing religion  by  stress  of  law,  and  this,  in  our  country,  I  consider  fanatical, 
unconstitutional,  unjust,  and  tyrannical.  While  I  believe,  with  all  my  heart 
in  the  Word  of  God,  /  am  opposed  to  any  statute  to  compel  me  or  my  child  to  read 
or  hear  ike  Bible  read  anywhere^  or  that  shall  compel  my  neighbor,  or  his  child,  to 
hear  or  read  the  Bible  anywhere  contrary  to  his  wishes,  and  the  honest  convictions 
of  his  own  conscience. 

It  is  to  explain  and  defend  my  views  on  this  subject  in  the  light  of 
Christianity,  and  of  our  organic  laws,  that  these  pages  are  published.  And 
J  have  been  the  more  constrained  to  offer  my  views  to  my  fellow-citizens,  be- 
cause the  sentiments  put  forth  at  this  time  among  us  with  such  extraordinary 
zeal,  are  not  only  erroneous,  in  my  judgment,  but  they  are  fraught  with  most 
disastrous  consequences  both  to  civil  liberty  and  the  Gospel.  And  in  trying 
to  expose  these  dangerous  tendencies,  I  would  also  contribute  my  humble 
part  toward  removing  prejudice,  softening  sectarian  enmity,  and  the  promotion 
of  peace  and  concord  among  my  fellow-citizens  of  all  creeds.  The  fact  that  it* 
is  not  within  the  power  of  any  single  individual  to  shape  and  control  public 
feeling,  is  no  reason  for  withholding  individual  effort.  The  man  is  a  traitor  to 
his  highest  duty,  who  fails  to  urge  his  conscientious  convictions  with  all  the 
might  of  his  arguments  upon  his  fellow-men,  that  he  may  do  his  part,  how- 
ever humble  it  may  be,  in  the  formation  of  an  enlightened  public  opinion. 

OF  THB     '^    Av  W.  A.  SCOTT. 

5th  May,  1859.  {(  UNIVERSITY 


DEDICATIOI^ 


To  MY  FELLOW-CITIZENS,  of  every  race  and  nation,  and  of  every 
tongue  and  of  every  religious  persuasion,  and  of  every  shade  of  po- 
litical and  religious  opinion — fervently  praying  them  to  give  this 
great  subject  their  calm,  patient  and  intelligent  consideration — this 
humble  Plea  for  universal,  impartial,  absolute,  perfect  personal  and 
social /recc?om  of  conscience^  is  most  respectfully  dedicated,  by 

THE  AUTHOR. 


CONTENTS 


I.  This  Tractate  called  for 7 

II.  Declaration  and  Confession  of  Faith 16 

III.  Preliminaries  to  be  settled 20 

lY.  The  simple  question  stated 26 

V.  Religious  liberty  in  the  light  of  our  Constitution  and 

laws 35 

VI.  Religiousness  of  the  American  peoples,  although  their 

government  has  no  religion 43 

Vn.  The  history  of  the  formation  of  our  government 46 

VIII.  The  sphere  and  duties  of  the  government 61 

IX.  Common  law  does  not  allow   legislation   against    the 

rights  of  conscience 58 

X.  This  battle  already  fought 66 

XI.  The  silence  of  the  Constitution 69 

XII.  Sunday,  Oaths  and  Chaplains 71 

XIII.  The  State  not  to  teach  the  Bible  anywhere 79 

XIV.  What  our  fathers  did 83 

XV.  Our  translation  sectarian 90 

XVI.  This  question  a  political  shibboleth 96 

XVII.  Majorities  have  no  power  over  the  conscience 101 

XVIII.  Compulsory  Bible-reading  insufficient 112 

XIX.  What  Christianity  asks  of  Caesar 121 

XX.  No  persecution  for  opinion  allowed   either  by   Chris- 
tianity or  the  Constitution  and  laws 128 

XXI.  Concluding  words 135 


THE  BIBLE  AID  POLITICS, 


I. 

This    Tractate  called  for. 

"  Strike,  but  hear  me." 

I  am  aware,  fellow-citizens,  that  Archbishop  Whately  has  said,  an 
author  never  receives  credit  for  avowing  his  motives  in  publishing  a 
book;  yet,  I  suppose  he  should  be  honest,  whether  the  public  give 
him  credit  for  it  or  not.  It  is  true,  however,  that  an  author  may  not 
always  think  it  his  duty  to  state  all  the  motives  that  have  prompted 
him  to  the  work ;  but  in  this  instance,  it  seems  to  me  to  be  proper  to 
say,  that  peculiar  circumstances  have,  in  my  judgment,  called  for  this 
publication,  over  iind  beyond  my  own  conviction  of  the  truth  of  the 
principles  I  endeavor  to  set  forth.  Though  it  is  my  usual  way  to 
begin  a  subject  at  the  beginning,  and  go  straight  into  it — in  medias 
res — in  this  Tractate,  I  have  judged  it  best,  after  the  manner  of  the 
old  Puritan  divines,  first  to  prepare  the  way  for  the  text.  A  neces- 
sity has  been  laid  upon  me  for  this  publication,  that  I  would  gladly 
have  escaped  from,  if  .my  convictions  of  duty  had  allowed  it.  I  con- 
fess, I  have  delayed  and  looked  around  for  reasons  to  excuse  myself 
from  this  duty,  but  I  have  not  been  able  to  find  such  as  satisfied  my 
own  conscience.  The  necessity  has  arisen  in  the  manner  following, 
and  is  in  part  explained  by  the  article  here  published  from  the  Saji 
Francisco  Times.  This  article  was  written  out  by  one  of  my  hearers 
from  the  manuscript  notes,  the  day  after  the  discourse  was  preached. 
The  introductory  and  concluding  remarks  are  of  course  editorial,  and 
the  third  person  is  used  by  the  writer  as  he  makes  the  extract  in  the 
character  of  a  reporter;  but  in  all  other  respects,  the  article  contains 
word  for  word  what  I  said  on  that  occasion. 

The  article  is  as  follows :  - 

DR.  SCOTT  OX  BIBLE  EDUCATIOX. 

Two  Sabbath  mornings  since,  the  Rev.  Dr.  Scott  delivered  a  discourse  in 
Calvary  Church  on  the  subject  of  "  The  Duty  of  Catechising  our  Children  in 
the  Doctrines  of  our  Holy  Religion,"  and  as  some  portions  of  the  discourse 
have  occasioned  much  discussion,  we  have  made  bold  to  lay  before  our  readers 
a  few  points  taken  from  the  notes  of  the  Rev.  Doctor,  though  in  justice  to  him 
we  must  say  that  many  of  the  more  brilliant  portions  of  the  lecture  were  un- 
written, and  came  forth  from  the  speaker  as  he  progressed  in  its  delivery.     It 


8  THE   BIBLE   AND    POLITICS. 

will  be  observed  that  the  only  part  of  his  discourse  to  which  our  remarks 
apply  is  his  allusion  to  the  Bible  in  our  public  schools. 

The  first  point  was  on  the  importance  of  teaching  the  youth  of  our  nation 
the  great  truths  of  the  Bible,  which,  observed  the  speaker,  is  not  only  a  duty, 
as  it  appears  from  the  plain,  emphatic  and  repeated  injunctions  of  the  Scrip- 
tures themselves,  and  from  the  obligations  assumed  at  their  baptism,  and  from 
the  customs  of  the  heathen,  and  of  the  Jews,  and  of  the  whole  church,  but  is 
also  recommended  to  us  because  it  is  the  best,  most  common  sense,  natural, 
philosophical  way  of  strengthening  their  intellectual  powers,  and  of  preparing 
them  for  the  duties  and  trials  of  life. 

First — That  our  children  need  the  Bible. 

Our  schools  may  be  divided  into  three  classes  ;  the  Sabbath  Schools,  which 
are  chiefly  religious  and  sectarian. 

Second — Our  public  schools  and  State  colleges,  which  cannot  consistently, 
as  I  believe,  have  any  religious  character  at  all. 

Third — Our  denominational  institutions,  that  is,  those  schools  and  collegCvS 
founded  and  managed  by  the  churches  or  different  denominations  in  which,  of 
course,  with  more  or  less  directness,  their  own  denominational  views  are 
taught.  I  hold  it  that  all  our  schools  ought,  and  must,  come  under  one  or 
the  other  of  these  classes.  For  as  to  the  attempt  to  build  up  a  church,  a  college,  or 
a  religious  institution  or  establishment  by  denominational  enterprise  and 
liberality  and  yet  be  ashamed  of  its  true  character;  I  think  it  both  dishonest 
and  cowardly,  and  hesitate  not  to  say — it  will  be  abortive. 

There  must  be  distinctiveness  of  character  and  honesty  about  such  things, 
or  the  public  will  not  put  confidence  in  them,  nor  should  they.  After  the 
uniform  and  unceasing  teachings  of  this  pulpit  against  persecution,  dogmatism 
and  intolerance,  let  it  not  be  said  this  is  bigotry — I  deny  the  charge,  said  the 
speaker. 

It  is  the  man  who  is  weak,  unstable,  dissatisfied,  unable  to  stand  alone,  and 
always  veering  about,  that  is  superstitious,  bigoted  and  intolerant.  The  more 
clear,  and  strong,  and  self-sustaining  a  man's  own  faith  is,  the  more  charitably 
disposed  is  he  toward  his  fellow  men.  I  hold  it  then,  said  the  speaker,  that 
our  Public  Schools  and  State  Institutions  cannot  know  or  teach  any  religion. 
We  need  to  have  it  taught  to  our  children  at  home,  and  in  our  Sabbath 
Schools  and  our  denominational  Schools  and  Colleges.  And  our  Christian 
Colleges  and  Sabbath  Schools  are  recreant  if  they  do  not  honestly  teach  the 
great  doctrines  and  distinctive  duties  of  life. 

I  do  not  believe,  said  Dr.  Scott,  that  any  religion  can  be  recognized  in  what 
the  State  supports.  If  the  Treasury  of  the  State  supports  an  institution, 
then  it  is  contrary  to  the  genius  of  our  government  and  the  spirit  of  our  laws, 
for  it  to  have  any  religious  worship  or  forms,  and  on  this  ground,  although  I 
should  myself  (said  Dr.  Scott)  prefer  to  have  the  Bible  read  in  our  schools, 
and  have  them  opened  with  prayer,  yet  I  do  not  believe  it  constitutional  or 
expedient  to  do  so — and  so  of  chaplains. 

The  point  I  have  in  hand  is,  (said  the  speaker)  most  of  our  children  will  be 
educated  in  the  Public  Schools.  Religion  cannot  be  taught  to  them  there ;  it 
ought  not  to  be  ;  yet  they  need  religious  truth.  Then  we  must  have  Denomi- 
national Schools. 

Our  friends,  the  Roman  Catholics  and  the  Hebrews,  are  consistent  on  this 
subject.  They  educate  their  own  children  in  their  own  faith,  and  certainly  I 
do  not  blame  them  for  it ;  and  the  tendency  always  is,  that  the  pupil  will  in 
the  end  embrace  the  faith  of  his  or  her  school.  This  is  natural ;  it  is  as  plain 
and  as  certain  as  the  shining  of  the  sun.  If  you  send  a  child  to  the  Jesuit 
school,  I  know  you  are  told  its  religion  is  not  directly  interfered  with,  and  I 
have  no  doubt  that  in  many  cases  this  is  honestly  said ;  yet  you  can  readily 
see  how  in  a  thousand  ways  a  bias  will  be  made  to  grow  up  in  the  mind  of 
the  pupil  in  favor  of  the  teacher's  religion.  If  the  teacher  is  honest,  and 
skillful,  and  beloved,  he  cannot  help  it ;  and  history,  and  a  reference  to  facts. 


NEWSPAPER   EXTRACTS.  9 

show  beyond  all  doubt  that  about  nine  of  every  ten  girls  sent  from  Protestant 
families  to  convents  become  Roman  Catholics.  I  wish,  said  the  speaker,  to  be 
distinctly  understood  on  this  point.  I  am  not  blaming  the  Jesuits  or  the 
Catholics  for  this,  I  believe  them  to  be  honest  and  consistent  in  the  matter ; 
I  only  wish  the  subject  to  be  clearly  understood.  In  sending  your  child  to 
a  school,  you  should  make  up  your  mind  to  the  strong  probability  that  the 
child  will  either  become  an  infidel,  or  embrace  the  religious  views  of  the 
teachers  of  the  school  where  it  is  educated.  The  result  then,  from  these 
views,  in  my  mind  is  this :  that  the  first  great  educator  of  the  youth  of  our 
country  is,  and  will  continue  to  be,  the  Public  Schools;  and  I  would  go  any 
reasonable  length  in  their  support,  and  make  them  so  complete  that  their  last 
step  would  be  into  a  City  University,  supported  in  like  manner,  from  which 
they  should  graduate  with  as  complete  an  education  as  could  be  had  any- 
where. 

Then  there  are,  as  has  already  been  said,  for  those  who  prefer  them, 
Denominational  Schools  ;  and  then,  for  all,  are  the  Sabbath  Schools,  so  that 
none  need  grow  up  without  religious  instruction.  And  their  personal  need  of 
such  instruction  is  plain  ;  they  are  all  in  need  of  a  Saviour. 

Dr.  Scott's  allusion  to  the  use  of  the  Bible  in  schools  was  brief  and  distinct, 
but  his  argument  was  to  show,  from  the  existing  state  of  things  among  us — 
taking  our  Public  Schools  just  as  they  are — that  greater  attention  should  be 
given  to  Sabbath  Schools.  His  argument  also  enhanced  the  very  great  im- 
portance of  Denominational  Schools,  on  Avhich  he  said  it  was  his  purpose  to 
dwell  more  at  length  at  another  time." 

I  was  not  aware  that  I  had  not  a  right  to  use  such  language  and 
to  utter  such  sentiments  as  the  foregoing,  but  for  these  sentiments  I 
have  been  spoken  of  in  the  following  style,  by  three  city  papers  and 
their  correspondents,  two  of  which  are  leading  religious  journals,  and 
one  a  daily  print.  The  extracts  that  follow  are  literally  copied  from 
letters  and  these  sheets,  except  three  lines,  which  contain  remarks 
made  on  the  same  subject  in  an  ecclesiastical  court.  In  making  the 
quotations,  much  has  been  omitted.  This  style  of  personal  invective 
has  been  more  or  less  pursued  for  many  months.  The  following  are 
the  morsels  I  refer  to :  '^  He  (Dr.  Scott)  has  joined  the  Atheists, 
Deists  and  Roman  Catholics."  •'  A  singular  alliance  !  The  pastor  of 
Calvary  Presbyterian  Church  with  the  Pope's  representatives  and 
Infidels."  "  A  Jesuit  in  disguise."  "  Archbishop  Hughes  !  The 
Jesuits,  Infidels  and  Dr.  Scott !"  '^  No  profession  of  regard  for  our 
system  of  public  instruction  can  conceal  the  Jesuitism  of  the  author 
of  the  sentiments  above  referred  to.  He  has  announced  a  ruinous 
and  destructive  heresy,  and  we  shall  do  all  we  can  to  hold  him  to  the 
responsibilities  of  his  position,"  ''Let  the  notes  of  preparation  be 
heard;  and  if  the  glove  be  thrown  from  an  unexpected  quarter, 
there  is  no  occasion  for  intimidation.  The  issue  must  be  met.  The 
pulpits  of  the  city  and  of  the  State  will  dare  to  take  up  the  theme 
and  discuss  it."  ''  The  Vatican  ;"  ''  the  Baltimore  conclave;"  "the 
Archbishop  of  New  York  and  Dr.  Scott;"  *' a  Jesuit  in  an  evan- 
gelical Protestant  pulpit ;"  "  in  decided  sympathy  with  the  Jesuits  ;" 
*•  a  Jesuit  in  disguise  •''  "  the  Bible  a  book  not  fit  to  be  read ;"  "  the 
enemy  of  the  Bible;"  "against  God's  most  holy  Word;"  "joined 
with  all  the  enemies  of  the  Bible  in  the  land ;"  a  party  in  "  a  secta- 


10  THE   BIBLE   AND    POLITICS. 

rian  and  infidel  association,  whict  has  for  its  sole  object  the  dishon- 
oring of  the  Word  of  God  f  '^  avowedly  anti-Christian ;"   ''a  Pope ;" 
^' a    demagogue;"    "fighting  the  battles   of  the  Romanist/'   ''and 
conceding  too  much  to  Catholics."     "  I  am  slow  in  getting  into  a 
fight,  but  I  come  square  up  to  it,  and  will  fight  it  through,  and  be 
the  last  to  come  out  of  the  fight.     In  for  a  ten  years  war,  or  until 
victory."     "  But,  passing  from  the  civil  to  the  religious,  what  do  we 
find  here,  marring  the  fair  fame  of  our  State,  and  blighting  to  those 
whose  hopes  of  morality  in  the  children  and  youth  of  our  land,  are 
based  upon  the  Bible  and   its   teachings?    A  high  church  func- 
tionary— a  D.   D.,  —  thundering    forth    his    egotistical   anathemas 
against  the  Bible  as  a  school  book;  pointing,  as  with  a  finger  of 
scorn,  at  its  pages,  as  containing  matter  not  proper  to  be  read  in 
schools  by  the  youth  of  our  land."      '^      *      "  It  could  have  been 
hoped  that,  with  our  Superior  Court  Judges  and  a  single  Rev.  D.  D., 
the  obloquy  of  a  war  upon  the  morality  of  our  people,  the  observance 
of  the  Sabbath  day,  and  the  exclusion  of  the  Bible  from  the  schools 
of  our  State,  could  alone  have  rested ;  but  it  seems  it  required  a  trio 
of  effort,  fully  to  blacken  and  mar,  in  the  opinion  of  the  world,  the 
otherwise  fair  fame  of  our  people.     It  was  not  enough  that  our  sons 
might  be  taught  to  run  riot  upon  the  Sabbath  day,  and  hiss  at  the 
teachings  of  the  Bible  as  a  part  of  their  scholastic  education."     And, 
as  a  mere  item  in  the  history  of  this  controversy,  let  it  be  remem- 
bered that,  when  the  proprietors  of  the  paper  in  which  this  last  ex- 
tract was  published,  who  are  communing  members,  if  I  am  not  much 
mistaken,  in  a  sister  Christian  Church,  were  politely  remonstrated 
with  for  publishing  such  slanderous  things  against  a  minister  of  the 
Gospel,  and  assured  that  what  they  had  published  was  erroneous, 
they  refused  to  make  any  correction.     Did  they  learn  this  from  read- 
ing the  Bible  in   Public  Schools  ?    Is  this  Christianity  ?    Why,  if  I 
had  preached  ''  Tom   Paine,"  or  Strauss,  or  published  a  ''  Biblio- 
machia,"  a   volume  entitled  ''  War  with  the  Bible,"  I  could  not 
have    been   more    violently   assailed.     A   congeries    of  blasphemy 
against  the  blessed  Word  of  God  could  not  have  called  out  more  vio- 
lent abuse.     And  what  was  it  for  ?    Kind  reader,  turn  back  to  the 
extract  on  the  preceding  pages —  and  you  have  the  whole  head  and 
front  of  my  offending.     And  now,  tell  me,  is  this  a  free  country  ? 
For  these  sentiments.  Calvary  Presbyterian  Church  was  to  be  broken 
down,  and  its   pastor  virtually  banished.      Already  were  the  spoils 
divided  and  speculations  indulged  as  to  what  other  Churches  would 
be  built  up  out  of  the  ruins. 

Now,  I  do  not  profess  to  have  attained  to  such  a  sublimity  of 
character  as  to  be  wholly  indifferent  to  the  good  opinion  of  the 
religious  public.  I  do  earnestly  covet  the  sympathy  and  approbation 
of  God's  people;  and  nothing  has  been  to  me  a  subject  of  more 
humble  and  sincere  congratulation  in  regard  to  my  past  labors,  than 
to  receive  the  highest  testimony  of  approbation  in  the  gift  of  the 
Church,  and   to   find,   also,  that  my  humble  contributions  to  the 


INVECTIVES   NOT   ANSWERABLE.  11 

Christian  literature  of  the  day  have  received  the  imprimature  of  the 
Presbyterian  Board  of  Publication.  I  have  also  abundant  testimony 
from  all  quarters,  that  "  the  doctrines  of  these  works  are  the  doctrines 
of  our  standards,  and  their  whole  tendency  is  to  promote  knowledge 
and  practical  religion.'^  Biblical  Rep.  and  Princeton  Review  for  Jan'y, 
1859.  I  candidly  confess  that  I  earnestly  covet  the  suifrages  of  en- 
lightened, and  pious  and  patriotic  men.  It  is  an  unspeakable  com- 
fort in  the  midst  of  toil  to  be  cheered  by  the  sympathy  and  support 
of  the  wise  and  the  experienced ;  and,  consequently,  every  ingenuous 
large-hearted  man  must  regret  to  find  himself  standing  alone ;  but, 
if  he  does,  he  should  console  himself  with  "  conscious  rectitude 
within,"  and  from  the  remembrance  that  he  stands  in  a  line  of  many 
illustrious  predecessors. 

These  odious  flings,  inuendoes,  misrepresentations  and  absolute 
falsehoods  as  to  what  I  have  preached,  and  as  to  what  my  principles 
are,  I  have  quoted,  simply  for  the  purpose  of  illustrating  in  part  why 
it  is  that  it  has  seemed  to  me  best  to  publish  this  Tractate.  I  am 
fully  persuaded  that  such  weapons  hurt  those  that  use  them  more 
than  they  do  their  opponents.  It  always  betrays  the  weakness  of  a 
man's  cause,  or  his  want  of  confidence  in  his  own  powers,  or  the 
maliciousness  of  his  heart  for  him  to  undertake  to  overthrow  argument 
by  personal  flings.  To  these,  therefore,  I  have  no  answer  to  make. 
I  remember  that  Agamemnon  said  : 

"  Unruly  murmurs,  or  ill-timed  applause 

Wrong  the  best  speaker,  and  the  justest  cause." 

And  that  "  great  ^neas"  said  to  Achilles : 

"  Reproach  is  infinite,  and  knows  no  end, 
So  voluble  a  weapon  is  the  tongue  ; 
Wounded  we  wound  ;  and  neither  side  can  fail, 
For  every  man  has  equal  strength  to  rail." 

For  the  writers  of  such  abusive  personal  flings  and  epithets  I  can 
have  no  other  feeling  than  that  of  pity.  My  consolation  flows  in 
deep  and  placid  streams,  from  principles  which  I  fear  they  are  not 
able  to  apprehend,  and  from  the  study  of  the  lives  of  men,  who  in 
past  ages  have  labored  and  sufi'ered  for  the  truth,  but  whose  memory 
I  fear  they  will  never  respect,  and  whose  actions  I  fear  they  will 
never  imitate. 

"  The  pulpits  of  the  city  and  of  the  State,"  have  taken  up  the  sub- 
ject to  some  extent — how  extensively  I  am  not  precisely  informed, 
but  in  many  of  the  interior  towns  the  pulpits  have  been  thus  employed; 
and  the  Rev.  Drs.  Anderson  and  Peck,  of  this  city,  for  whom  I  have 
the  highest  personal  respect,  have  at  least  preached  seven  Sunday 
evening  discourses  on  the  subject,  and  have  also  published  them,  or 
the  substance  of  them.  This  they  had  an  undoubted  right  to  do. 
And  I  am  happy  to  believe  that  no  personal  invectives  or  odious 


12  THE    BIBLE   AND    POLITICS. 

flings  have  been  heaped  upon  them,  and  that  they  have  not,  in  any- 
way, been  molested  for  their  opinions.  No  pulpit  nor  newspaper  has 
bombarded  their  citadel,  nor  has  any  Ecclesiastical  court  been  asked 
to  thunder  forth  its  ''bull"  against  them.  In  this  Tractate  I  do  not 
acknowledge  either  of  these  Reverend  Doctors,  nor  any  one  else  as  a 
personal  opponent.  It  is  true,  however,  that  I  have  examined  every 
argument  or  point  presented  in  their  seven  Sabbath  evening  dis- 
courses, that  in  my  humble  judgment  was  of  any  importance,  or  could 
fairly  be  considered  ad  rem,  and  have  made  the  best  answer  that  I 
could  to  them,  I  may  say  the  same  thing  of  the  work  of  Rev.  Dr. 
Cheever,  of  New  York,  who  is  the  leader  and  Ajax  of  this  contro- 
versy. I  have  also  before  me  an  immense  pile  of  letters  and  manu- 
script documents  from  some  of  the  ablest  and  best  men  of  the  State, 
both  for  and  against  my  views  of  this  great  question,  and  as  far  as  I 
could,  I  design  to  make  this  Tractate  an  answer  to  them  also,  although 
for  the  present,  they  desire  their  names  to  remain  unknown  to  the 
public.  It  is  but  justice  to  myself  also  to  say  here,  that  I  have  the 
approbation  of  some  of  the  highest  legal  talent  of  the  country  to  the 
principles  for  which  I  am  contending. 

The  following  extract  from  the  last  sermon  of  Rev.  Dr.  Anderson, 
will  assist  in  explaining  why  this  Plea  is  called  for  : 

"  A  fearful  responsibility  rests  upon  the  Church  on  this  coast,  at 
this  time — and  it  is  cheering  to  see  her  preparing  to  meet  that  res- 
ponsibility. The  present  waking  up  of  God's  people  on  the  subject 
is  an  earnest  of  speedy  victory.  The  Protestant  pulpits  of  California 
are  speaking  out  trumpet-tongued,  and  so  is  the  religious  press,  and 
to  some  extent  the  secular  one."  "  In  conclusion  we  say,  that  the 
duty  of  the  State  to  put  the  word  of  God  into  all  its  schools  is  clear 
and  imperative,"  with  other  reasons,  because  a  system  of  education 
without  the  Bible  "is  avowedly  anti-Christian;"  *  *  "and 
because  the  State  has  no  right  to  make  itself  a  party  in  a  sectarian 
and  infidel  association,  which  has  for  its  sole  object  the  dishonoring  of 
the  word  of  God,  and  the  changing  the  ways  of  our  forefathers  for 
more  than  two  hundred  years;  and  finally,  because  God  has  com- 
manded it  so  to  do."     Page  31. 

Now  let  us  observe  in  the  above  extract,  1.  The  attitude  of  the 
Church  and  the  waking  up  of  God's  people  with  the  shout  already  to 
be  raised  of  "  speedy  victory,"  and  of  "  the  trumpet-tongued  "  "i^ro- 
testant puljnts''  and  of  the  religious  press;  and  say,  is  it  not  time  for 
those  who  have  any  convictions  of  duty  and  any  conscience  that  is 
trampled  upon  in  this  affair  to  speak  out,  and  say  also,  if  all  this  does 
not  mean — does  not  necessarily  imply,  that  this  contest  is  a  sectarian 
one — and  to  be  made  a  political  partisan  one  also  ?  This  flourish  of 
trumpets  and  defiant  shout,  at  least  looks  in  that  direction,  and  I  fear 
we  shall  hear  much  more  of  this  than  is  for  the  peace  of  the  com- 
munity in  our  coming  elections.  2.  Observe  also  that  it  is  afiirmed 
positively,  "  that  the  duty  of  the  State  to  put  the  Word  of  God  into 


califorh\^ 
reasons  called  for.  13 

all  its  schools,  is  clear  and  imperative."  Now  for  such  a  statement 
as  this,  we  should  have  been  furnished  with  the  authority.  A  duty 
of  the  State  that  is  "  clear  and  imperative,"  ought  not  to  rest  on 
inferences,  nor  on  arguments  from  assumptions,  nor  from  individual 
constructions  of  the  Constitution  and  laws.  For  such  a  duty  as  this 
we  should  have  the  chapter  and  article — the  express  authority  of  our 
organic  laws,  defining  and  pointing  out  this  duty  of  the  State.  And 
then  for  myself,  I  must  have  also  the  authority  of  the  Church — of 
Grod's  people — empowering  or  allowing  the  State  to  do  this  thing.  I 
must  beg  the  privilege  for  myself  of  being  particular  on  this  point. 
I  am  jealous  for  the  freedom  of  religion  and  the  independence  of  the 
crown  and  kingdom  of  Jesus  Christ.  And  even  if,  which  I  do  not 
believe  will  be  the  case,  I  am  left  "on  this  coast  at  this  time," 
apparently  to  stand  alone  under  the  "  thundering  shout"  of  "  the 
awakened  hosts"  and  "trumpet-tongues"  of  "the  Protestant  pul- 
pits" of  California,  I  must  stand  alone  the  best  way  I  can,  and  hope 
in  God  for  the  future, 

"  Yet  mighty  as  they  are,  my  force  to  prove 
Is  only  mine  : 
But  heaven  alone  confers  success  in  war." — Iliad. 

I  do  not  believe  the  fundamental  laws  of  our  country  give  any 
power  to  place  the  Bible,  or  any  other  religious  book,  nor  to  teach  in 
any  degree  nor  in  any  way,  any  religion  in  the  Public  Schools,  if  it 
is  objected  to  by  citizen  tax-payers  in  the  particular  district,  on  the 
plea  of  religious  conscience,  or  by  the  Teachers  or  Directors.  Nor 
do  I  admit,  that  the  people  of  God  in  the  United  States  have  ever 
committed  or  surrendered  in  any  way  such  a  power  to  the  State. 
The  texts  of  Scripture  which  my  friends  quote,  as  authorizing  this, 
are  not  in  any  single  instance  addressed  to  the  State,  not  to  Caesar, 
but  to  the  Church.  It  is  the  Church  of  God  that  is  commanded  by 
Christ  to  evangelize  the  world,  but  He  did  not  tell  his  disciples  to  do 
this  by  the  legions  and  edicts  of  Caesar.  This  vital  point  seems  to 
have  been  wholly  overlooked  by  those  who  are  so  eloquent  in  pleading 
for  the  State  to  teach  religion. 

3.  It  cannot  be  admitted,  as  a  fair  and  true  statement,  that  the  system 
of  education  which  those  advocate  who  are  opposed  to  the  plans  of 
Drs.  Cheever,  Anderson  and  Peck,  "is  avowedly  anti-christian." 
"Is  avowedly  anti-christian,"  not  inferentially,  not  made  to  appear 
so  by  the  arguments  of  its  opponents,  but  "avowedly  anti-christian." 
Now,  I  have  yet  to  see  the  first  avowal  of  this  kind  from  Quakers, 
Catholics,  Hebrews,  or  even  Deists;  much  less  from  the  large  body 
of  professing  Christians  of  the  various  Protestant  denominations,  who 
have  conscientious  scruples  against  the  use  of  legislative  power  for 
putting  the  Bible  in  Public  Schools. 

It  is  well  known,  that  the  different  Protestant  and  dissenting 
Churches  of  Great   Britain    are  dissatisfied   with   their   "National 


14  THE   BIBLE   AND    POLITICS. 

Schools/^  not  because  they  wish  to  have  a  system  of  education 
"avowedly  anti-christian/'  ^^nfider'  and  ^'Godless;"  but  because 
in  these  National  Schools  the  Bible  is  not  used  at  all,  or  if  used  at 
all,  is  not  used  enough.  They  wish  religion  to  be  taught,  and  to  be 
taught  according  to  their  standards.  Nor  is  it  true  that  the  Roman 
Catholics  of  this  country  object  to  the  use  of  the  Protestant  Bible  in 
the  Public  Schools,  because  they  (Catholics)  are  "avowedly  anti- 
christian"  and  "infidel."  This  cannot  be  maintained  for  a  moment. 
Roman  Catholics  are  not  infidels,  nor  are  they  the  enemies  of  what 
they  believe  to  be  the  Word  of  G-od.  And  4.  I  submit  the  candid 
inquiry,  whether  there  are  not  two  sides  to  the  statement,  "  that  the 
State  has  no  right  to  make  itself  a  party  in  a  sectarian  and  infidel 
association,  which  has  for  its  sole  object  the  dishonoring  of  the  Word 
of  God.';   ^ 

Here  it  is  to  be  observed  that  after  all,  this  question  then  about  the 
Bible  in  Public  Schools  is  a  sectarian  one ;  so  I  have  always  regarded  it. 
It  cannot  be  anything  else,  as  I  shall  show  in  another  place.  But  the 
question  that  I  humbly  urge  just  here  is  this,  if  "the  State  has  no 
right  to  make  itself  a  party  in  a  sectarian  and  infidel  association, 
which  has  for  its  sole  object  the  dishonoring  of  the  Word  of  God," 
how  is  it  that  the  State  has  any  right  to  interfere  on  the  subject  at 
all  ?  And  furthermore,  if  it  has  no  right  to  interfere  in  favor  of  this 
so-called  "sectarian  and  infidel  association,"  how  does  it  come  to 
have  the  right  to  interfere  against  it  ?  If  the  State  has  no  right  to 
Biake  itself  a  party  on  the  one  side,  how  can  it  make  itself  a  party 
on  the  other  side?  I  cannot  see  any  escape,  for  the  State  is  under 
the  same  and  equal  obligations  to  both  parties,  and  both  parties  are 
equal  in  the  eyes  of  the  State  and  cannot  be  recognized  by  it  as 
having  any  religion,  as  being  infidels,  Catholics  or  Protestants.  Cer- 
tainly not.  If,  then,  the  State  cannot  become  a  party  on  the  one 
side,  it  cannot  become  a  party  on  the  other;  it  is  impossible  for 
the  State  to  decide  a  religious  controversy  without  expressing  a 
preference,  and  making  a  discrimination  between  creeds  and  reli- 
gions, which  I  suppose  is  a  power  not  known  to  our  organic  laws. 
The  subject  is  one  of  the  utmost  importance  to  us  and  our  children, 
and  I  am  sure  there  is  no  safety  but  in  keeping  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
State  altogether  within  and  confined  to  civil  and  secular  matters,  and 
in  depending  upon  the  light  of  truth  and  the  conscience,  and  not  upon 
legislation,  for  the  maintenance  and  the  teaching  of  our  holy  religion. 
The  first  step  toward  giving  the  State  the  power  to  do  a  single  thing 
in  favor  of  a  religion,  is  a  step  from  the  great  platform  of  our  fathers, 
and  is  a  step  toward  an  establishment  and  the  consequent  corruption 
and  slavery  of  the  Church  of  the  living  God.  I  do  not  doubt  that 
many  of  the  advocates  of  the  measures  I  am  opposing  mean  well. 
They  are  patriots  and  Christians,  they  have  no  personal  or  sinister 
purposes  to  serve;  but  they  are  mistaken  in  the  reach  of  their  policy. 
In  my  humble  judgment,  there  is  a  want  of  forethought  as  to  where 
this  agitation  is  to  lead  us,  if  their  system  is  carried  out.     If  once 


I 


WHY  THIS  tractate:  15 

we  engraft  on  our  Constitution  the  policy  of  legislating  for  Protes- 
tants in  contradistinction  to  Catholics,  and  for  Christians  in  contradis- 
tinction to  Israelites,  or  any  other  kind  of  religionists,  it  will  lead, 
in  my  judgment,  to  fatal  difficulties  in  our  country. 

Again,  and  as  another  reason  for  this  publication,*!  have  of  late 
been  repeatedly  asked,  both  by  those  who  hold  the  same  views  with 
myself,  as  well  as  by  those  who  hold  contrary  opinions,  to  recommend 
some  tract  or  book  that  contained  a  fair  view  of  this  great  subject, 
and  I  have  always  been  obliged  to  answer  that  I  did  not  know  of  any 
such  publication.  All  the  tracts  and  books  that  I  have  met  with  on 
this  subject  are  in  favor  of  the  views  that  I  am  opposing,  or  altogether 
defective  in  presenting  fairly  what  I  conceive  to  be  the  true  issues 
involved  in  this  great  question. 

I  repeat,  this  publication  is  not  of  my  own  seeking,  I  have  been 
anxious  to  excuse  myself  from  it,  both  because  all  the  time  and 
strength  that  I  can  spare  from  parochial  and  pulpit  duties  is  given 
to  other  literary  pursuits,  and  also  because  I  am  averse  to  anything 
that  might  be  construed  into  a  personal  controversy.  But  when  I 
found  myself  not  only  proscribed  for  the  opinions  uttered  and  pub- 
lished in  the  foregoing  extract — but  that  for  months  stereotyped  and 
new  misrepresentations  of  my  sentiments  were  widely  circulated,  and 
that  my  motives  for  keeping  silent  were  impugned;  and,  more  than 
all,  when  ecclesiastical  thunder  was  actually  poured  upon  my  ears, 
and  the  cause  of  truth  and  the  principles  and  policy  of  the  Church 
to  which  I  have  the  honor  to  belong  were  misunderstood,  and  when 
my  friends  said,  "  that  I  owed  it  to  them,  if  not  to  myself,  to  vindi- 
cate my  principles" — then  I  could  no  longer  remain  silent. 

In  this  Tractate,  therefore,  I  have  endeavored  to  do  what  has  seemed 
to  me  to  be  my  solemn  duty  to  our  holy  religion,  and  to  the  branch  of 
the  Church  of  Christ  to  which  I  belong,  and  to  myself  as  a  citizen,  and 
to  my  country  and  to  my  God — to  the  cause  of  Truth  and  of  civil 
and  religious  liberty,  and  to  posterity,  to  whom  we,  who  have  been 
called  by  Providence  to  lay  the  foundations  of  American  institutions 
on  this  coast,  owe  the  preservation  and  transmission  of  the  precious 
birthright  of  perfect  religious  freedom  and  of  political  equality,  and 
a  well-endowed  system  of  Public  Schools,  without  sectarianism  or 
religious  bigotry.  It  has  been  my  earnest  wish,  throughout  these 
pages,  that  no  difference  of  views  should  lead  to  offensive  language. 
If,  however,  as  all  men  are  liable  to  err,  I  have  allowed  any  such 
expressions  to  escape  me,  I  beg  pardon.  It  was  not  designed.  And 
if  I  have  fallen  into  inaccuracies  or  errors,  I  am  ready  to  correct 
them.  I  do  most  cheerfully  allow  every  human  being  to  enjoy  his 
opinions,  even  when  I  am  satisfied  they  are  unsound,  and,  in  ray 
judgment,  unfriendly  to  the  welfare  of  the  community.  But  every 
man  must  answer  for  his  own  responsibility  to  God,  and  not  to  his 
fellow  man.  From  the  facts  stated  and  alluded  to  in  the  foregoing 
pages,  it  is  fairly  to  be  inferred  that  there  is  a  solemn  league  and 
combination  virtually  made  between  a  considerable  part  of  the  Pro- 


16  THE    BIBLE    AND    POLITICS. 

testant  Churches  on  this  coast,  and  isms  of  various  shapes  and  colors, 
to  "  agitate"  the  State,  and  force  the  Legislature  and  the  School 
Directors  to  use  the  Protestant  translation  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  in 
the  Public  Schools.  If  this  is  not  the  meaning  of  the  threats  and 
notes  of  victory  already  sounded,  and  the  defiant  shouts  of  the  battle, 
then  I  am  mistaken. ,  And  I  sincerely  hope,  on  this  point,  it  will  be 
found  that  I  am  mistaken.  In  the  meantime,  having  herein  tried 
to  do  my  duty,  I  leave  my  fellow  citizens  free  to  hold  their  own 
views  and  to  bear  their  own  responsibilities,  without  seeking  to  excite 
the  howl  of  heresy  and  of  impiety  against  them,  because  their  opin- 
ions difi*er  from  mine.  I  am  so  confident  in  the  power  of  truth 
and  the  justice  of  the  cause  I  plead,  that  I  have  no  doubt  but  that  it 
will  ultimately  triumph ;  but,  like  the  great  powers  of  nature,  it  will 
march  to  victory  with  no  defiant  shouts  of  majorities,  but  in  the 
silent  and  awful  majesty  of  its  original  omnipotence.  "  All  things 
must  bow  to  the  majesty  of  truth."  "  Ferar  dum  prosim" — Let  me 
be  crushed  if  it  must  he,  if  I  may  only  he  useful.  And  now,  asking 
pardon  for  the  personal  references  that  seem  necessary  here,  but  not 
to  be  repeated,  I  conclude  by  fervently  praying  that  all  my  fellow 
citizens  may  know  the  truth,  and  that  the  truth  may  make  them 
forever  free  from  sin  and  death,  through  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 


II. 

Declaration  and  Confession  of  Faith. 

The  Rev.  Dr.  Anderson  gives  as  ^^a  sectarian  reason"  why  he 
preached  four  Sabbath  evenings,  and  then  published,  first  in  a  news- 
paper and  then  in  a  pamphlet,  on  the  Bible  in  the  schools,  that  "  the 
Presbyterian  Church  is  forming  its  character  on  the  Pacific  coast — 
and  what  shall  be  its  type  ?  Shall  it  bear  the  noble  form  of  the  old 
church  at  home,  which  has  ever  been  found  in  the  van,  when  stout 
battle  was  to  be  fought  with  infidelity  and  popery,  in  defense  of  the 
Bible  in  schools ;  in  defense  of  laws  for  the  better  observance  of  the 
Sabbath,  and  for  the  suppression  of  Sunday  mails?  Or,  shall  it  lower 
its  standard,  and  assume  a  form  which  will  not  do  violence  to  the 
spirit  of  the  world  and  the  existing  state  of  things  here  ?  In  dis- 
cussing this  subject  we  hope  to  contribute  somewhat  toward  the 
restoration  of  the  Bible  to  our  California  schools,  and  at  the  same 
time  to  show  to  those  unacquainted  with  us  on  this  coast,  what  is  the 
uniform  faith  and  action  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  of  the  Greneral 
Assembly  in  relation  to  the  subject,  for  the  views  we  hold  and  here 
express,  are  but  the  views  held  and  expressed  by  our  whole  Church." 

Now,  as  the  Presbyterian  Church  is  a  law  abiding  Church,  and 
admonishes  its  members  "  to  obey  the  lawful  commands  of  civil  and 


THE   PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCH.  17 

ecclesiastical  rulers,  and  to  be  in  subjection  to  their  authority,  for 
conscience's  sake ;"  it  becomes  all  Presbyterians  at  least  to  know 
what  "  the  acts  and  testimony"  of  "  the  old  Church  at  home"  are  in 
relation  to  this  subject.  In  the  history  of  the  Church  we  find  a  great 
deal  on  toleration  and  liberty  of  conscience,  and  of  earnestness  for  the 
faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints  ;  but  have  not  yet  found  one  syllable 
on  the  compulsory  use  by  statute  law  of  the  Protestant  Bible  in  state 
institutions.  Not  one.  The  Presbyterian  Church  holds  and  teaches 
that  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  are  the  word  of 
the  living  God — that  "  these  Scriptures  were  given  by  inspiration  of 
God  to  be  the  rule  of  faith  and  life" — "  to  direct  us  how  we  may 
glorify  and  enjoy  Him" — and  ^*  That  the  Scriptures  principally  teach 
what  man  is  to  believe  concerning  God,  and  what  duty  God  requires 
of  man."  "  The  Old  Testament  in  Hebrew,  and  the  New  Testament 
in  €rreek,  being  immediately  inspired  by  God,  and  by  His  singular 
care  and  providence  kept  pure  in  all  ages,  are  therefore  authentical : 
so  as  in  all  controversies  of  religion  the  Church  is  finally  to  appeal  to 
them  •/'  for  "  the  Supreme  Judge,  by  whom  all  controversies  of  reli- 
gion are  to  be  determined,  and  all  decrees  of  councils,  opinions  of 
ancient  writers,  doctrines  of  men  and  private  spirits,  are  to  be  ex- 
amined, and  in  whose  sentence  we  are  to  rest,  can  be  no  other 
but  the  Holy  Spirit  speaking  in  the  Scripture."  Nevertheless, 
the  Scriptures  "  are  to  be  translated  into  the  vulgar  language 
of  every  nation  unto  which  they  come,  that  the  Word  of  God, 
dwelling  plentifully  in  all,  they  may  worship  him  in  an  accept- 
able manner,  and,  through  patience  and  comfort  of  the  Scriptures, 
may  have  hope."  "  God  alone  is  Lord  of  the  conscience  ',  and  hath 
left  it  free  from  the  doctrine  and  commandments  of  men."  "  The 
rights  of  private  judgment,  in  all  matters  that  respect  religion,  are 
universal  and  unalienable  :  they  do  not  even  wish  to  see  any  religious 
constitution  aided  by  the  civil  power,  further  than  may  be  necessary 
for  protection  and  security,  and,  at  the  same  time,  be  equal  and  com- 
mon to  all  others."  '<  They  also  believe  that  there  are  truths  and 
forms  with  respect  to  which  men  of  good  characters  and  principles 
may  diff"er.  And  in  all  these,  they  think  it  the  duty,  both  of  private 
Christians  and  societies,  to  exercise  mutual  forbearance  toward  each 
other."  "  No  Church  judicatory  ought  to  pretend  to  make  laws  to 
bind  the  conscience,  in  virtue  of  their  own  authority."  "  All  synods 
and  councils  may  err,  through  the  frailty  inseparable  from  human- 
ity ;"  therefore,  "  the  Holy  Scriptures  are  the  only  rule  of  faith 
and  manners."  "  Ecclesiastical  discipline  must  be  purely  moral  or 
spiritual  in  its  object,  and  not  attended  with  any  civil  efi"ects." 
"  Synods  and  councils  are  to  handle  or  conclude  nothing,  but  that 
which  is  ecclesiastical',  and  are  not  to  intermeddle  with  civil  affairs." 
"  They  do  solemnly  and  publicly  declare,  that  they  ever  have  and 
still  do  renounce  and  abhor  the  principles  of  intolerance ;  and  we  do 
believe  that  every  peaceable  member  of  civil  society  ought  to  be  pro- 
tected in  the  full  and  free  exercise  of  their  religion." 
3 


1$  THE   BIBLE   AND    POLITICS. 

"  Resolved,  1.  That  this  General  Assembly  do  most  firmly  hold  and  maintain, 
that  it  is  the  undeniable  right  of  all  men  to  worship  the  Creator  according  to 
the  dictates  of  their  own  consciences. 

"  2.  That  they  regard  every  attempt  to  restrain  this  right,  not  only  as  con- 
trary to  the  spirit  of  the  gospel,  but  ineflFectual  for  the  promotion  of  genuine 
piety,  or  the  prevention  of  diversities  in  religious  opinion. 

3.  "  That  the  history  of  this  country  does,  in  their  view,  decidedly  prove,  that 
true  religion  is  most  promoted,  and  the  peace  and  welfare  of  society  are  best 
secured,  by  allowing  perfect  liberty  of  worship  to  all  men. 

"  Such  are  the  constitutional  principles  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  these 
United  States.  They  were  our  fathers'  principles,  before  and  during  the 
revolution,  which  issued  in  the  consummation  of  our  liberty  and  independence, 
and  under  the  influence  of  which  they  prayed  and  fought,  and  bled,  by  the 
side  of  the  father  of  our  country.  They  have  been  the  principles  of  their  de- 
scendants ever  since.  They  are  our  principles  still,  adopted  from  conviction, 
to  whose  support  we  have  pledged  ourselves  under  the  most  solemn  sanctions, 
and  by  the  preservation  of  which  we  believe  that  the  common  interests  of 
evangelical  religion  and  civil  liberty  will  be  most  effectually  sustained."    ■ 

These  are  the  acts  and  testimonies  of  "the  old  Presbyterian 
Church/'  taken  from  its  Confession  of  Faith  and  Form  of  Govern- 
ment, and  the  minutes  of  a  few  of  its  early  councils;  and  from  them 
it  is  plain  that  we  believe  in  the  Inspired  Word  of  Grod,  and  that  it 
should  be  translated  and  preached  to  all  men — and  that  the  State  has 
supreme  authority  in  civil  matters,  and  that  the  Church  of  Christ  is 
purely  a  spiritual  body,  and  is  not  to  interfere  with  civil  affairs. 
While,  therefore,  it  is  true  that  the  Presbyterian  Church  is  ardently 
devoted  to  her  standards,  and  has  always  been  '^  in  the  van"  for  the 
promotion  of  education,  still  I  regret  that  an  effort  has  been  made 
"to  show  to  those  unacquainted  with  us'^  that  "the  type"  of  this 
church  on  this  coast  is  to  be  found  "  in  stout  battle  in  defense  of  the 
Bible  in  schools )  in  defense  of  laws  for  the  better  observance  of  the 
Sabbath,  and  for  the  suppression  of  Sunday  mails."  It  remains  to 
be  seen  whether  this  type  is  really  given  by  the  authority  of  the 
"whole  church."  In  looking  over  the  articulated  faith  and  action  of 
the  Presbyterian  Church,  it  is  as  plain  as  the  light  of  heaven  that  it 
teaches  that  "  God  is  Lord  alone  of  the  conscience" — that  the 
Church  cannot  admit  any  dictation  from  the  State,  and  that  the 
Church  is  wholly  a  spiritual  body,  and  that  its  jurisdiction  is  purely 
ecclesiastical.  And  whatever  dictatorial  utterances  by  individuals,  or 
Presbyteries,  or  Synods,  may  be  made  on  the  subject,  in  the  light  of 
Presbyterian  history  it  will  be  found  to  be  something  absolutely  new 
in  her  policy  to  wish  to  compel  the  use  of  the  Bible  by  law  in  free 
Publi(i  Schools.  To  take  the  taxes  of  citizens  of  other  denominations 
and  of  citizens  who  do  not  believe  in  any  religion,  or  at  least  not  in 
ours,  to  establish  schools,  and  then  by  legislative  acts  cause  our 
Bible,  which  is  "  the  Religion  of  Protestants,"  according  to  Chilling- 
worth  and  the  whole  Protestant  world,  to  be  used  in  those  schools,  con- 
trary to  the  remonstrances  of  those  citizen  taxpayers,  is  just  what  I  pro- 
test against,  and  declare  it  to  be  wholly  antagonistic  to  any  resolution, 
act,  or  deliverance  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  and  wholly  against 


A   NEW   DECLARATION.  19 

its  institutions  and  spirit.  Thus  far  in  the  history  of  the  Church, 
there  is  not  a  syllable  on  the  subject  of  the  Protestant  Bible  by  law 
in  our  National  Schools,  and  even  the  deliverance  of  the  General 
Assembly,  though  worthy  of  high  respect,  would  not  be  a  law  of  the 
Church. 

As  a  citizen  and  a  Presbyterian,  then,  I  do  not  believe  it  constitu- 
tional or  right  to  tax  my  fellow  citizens,  who  are  Israelites,  Budhists, 
Mohammedans  or  Catholics,  or  who  do  not  believe  in  any  religion,  to 
support  a  school  in  which  my  religion  is  to  be  taught — just  as  I 
should  consider  it  oppression  to  be  compelled  to  pay  taxes  to  support 
a  State  School  in  which  their  religion  was  to  be  taught.  The  objec- 
tion here  is  not  to  the  Bible  as  the  word  of  God,  nor  on  the  ground 
that  education  should  be  conducted  wholly  without  religious  instruc- 
tion. In  all  pay  schools,  private  schools,  denominational  schools,  and 
even  in  the  public  schools,  if  all  interested  in  the  district  consent, 
then  the  Bible  may  and  ought  to  be  used.  The  difficulty  rests  in  the 
compelling  by  statute  the  use  of  the  Protestant  Bible  against  the 
wishes  of  the  teachers  or  parents  whose  taxes  support  the  school. 

If  it  is  the  meaning  and  intention  of  the  people  and  government  of 
the  United  States,  that  this  country  ''is  and  of  right  ought  to  be" 
by  law  a  Protestant  Evangelical  Christian  countiy,  why  then,  I  have 
only  to  say,  let  us  make  a  new  Declaration,  and  have  a  new  Bill  of 
Bights  and  a  new  Constitution,  setting  forth  honestly  that  such  is  the 
will  and  policy  of  the  American  people.  Let  us  at  once  tell  Catho- 
lics, Israelites  and  "the  rest  of  mankind,"  that  it  is  a  mistake  for 
them  to  come  to  America  expecting  perfect  religious  freedom  and 
equality;  for  that,  though  they  may  enjoy  what  religious  opinions 
they  please,  and  worship  God  as  they  please,  yet  we  will  tax  them  to 
help  us  teach  Christianity  after  the  Evangelical  Protestant  type  in  our 
public  institutions.  Let  us  tell  them  quickly,  (for  if  this  is  the  policy 
of  the  United  States,  all  Europe  and  the  rest  of  the  world  are  in  error 
on  the  subject,)  that  this  being  a  Protestant  Christian  country,  they 
will  only  be  tolerated  here  in  their  religion,  for  that  on  account  of  it 
they  must  submit  to  pay  taxes  without  representation  or  any  equiva- 
lent, and  that  on  account  of  their  peculiar  religious  opinions,  some  of 
the  pursuits  of  life  cannot  be  open  and  free  to  them,  and  that  pro- 
bably in  a  few  years,  under  the  shadow  of  such  favoring  statutes 
toward  other  creeds,  they  and  their  children  will  be  persecuted  to  the 
utmost  extent  at  least  of  the  penalties  that  hypocrisy,  cant  and  preju- 
dice can  inflict.  It  is  my  solemn  belief,  if  the  United  States  is  a  Pro- 
testant christian  nation,  in  the  sense  claimed  by  those  who  are  contend- 
ing for  Chaplains,  for  the  suppression  of  the  Sunday  mails,  and  for  the 
compulsory  use  of  our  Protestant  Bible  in  the  Public  Schools,  that 
we  owe  it  to  truth  and  honesty  to  make  a  new  declaration  to  man- 
kind. On  the  contrary,  however,  I  believe  in  universal,  perfect, 
absolute  religious  freedom ;  and  I  do  not  believe  that  any  Church  or 
sect  has  the  right  in  the  United  States  to  employ  the  civil  or  secular 
power,  in  any  way  or  to  any  extent  or  by  any  means,  to  oppress  or  do 


20  THE    BIBLE    AND    POLITICS. 

violence  to  the  conscience  of  a  single  individual  citizen  of  any  other 
creed  or  Church,  or  of  no  religion  at  all.  I,  therefore,  plead  in 
these  humble  pages,  as  I  think  the  Bible  and  the  Constitution 
authorize  me  to  do,  for  equaV protection  to  the  religious  conscience 
of  every  human  being,  and  that  no  support  be  given  directly  nor  in- 
directly to  any  sect  or  Church  by  the  State,  and  that  our  Public 
Schools  be  kept  wholly  free  from  all  religious  dogmas  and  secta- 
rianism, and  that  the  religious  instruction  of  children  like  that  of 
adults,  be  left  entirely  to  individuals,  to  associated  voluntary  efforts, 
to  the  various  Churches  and  their  schools,  and  to  the  parents  and  to 
home  influences. 


III. 

Preliminaries  to  he  Settled. 

''  Amicus  Plato,  Amicus  Socrates,  sed  magis  Arnica  Veritas." 

Those  who  think  for  themselves  compose  as  yet  but  a  small  army. 
Nor  should  it  be  thought  a  strange  thing  that  they  are  a  small  army 
when  we  remember  how  ignorance,  prejudice  and  error  have  reigned 
over  mankind,  and  that  an  indispensable  prerequisite  of  joining  this 
little  army  is  courage  to  dare  and  do,  to  suffer  and  to  die  with  the 
bravest  of  the  brave.  I  am  well  aware  that  we  are  all  prone  to  follow 
the  dictum  that  has  been  told  to  us — that  we  are  all  more  or  less  the 
victims  of  early  prejudices — and  should  therefore  cultivate  the  most 
enlarged  charity  toward  ea^h  other ;  and  it  may  be  there  are  some  so 
possessed  by  bigoted  hate  and  sectarian  traditions  that  they  will  scorn 
this  humble  Tractate  without  so  much  as  touching  it.  But  I  am  per- 
suaded that  where  there  is  so  much  intellect  and  intelligence  and 
liberality  of  sentiment — and  so  great  a  variety  of  political  and  reli- 
gious opinions  as  characterizes  the  people  of  California,  there  must 
be  and  there  are  many — a  vast  majority  as  I  firmly  believe  who  are 
willing  to  hear  both  sides  of  a  great  question,  and  are  sincerely 
desirous  of  coming  to  the  truth.  It  is  to  such  that  I  fain  would 
speak  in  these  pages.  The  subject  is  surpassed  by  no  other  in  impor- 
tance, unless  it  be  by  the  Grace  of  God.  All  civilized  nations  have 
acknowledged  the  importance  of  the  education  of  youth.  Jews  and 
Christians  have  always  held  the  instruction  of  youth  as  a  first  duty. 
All  my  life  by  the  pen  and  from  the  pulpit  I  have  according  to  my 
measure  of  ability  pleaded  the  cause  of  Religious  Freedom,  and  for  an 
open  Bible,  an  unfettered  press,  and  the  paramount  claims  of  educa- 
tion. I  am  not  willing  to  yield  to  any  one  a  higher  estimation  of  the 
value  of  revealed  Religion,  or  of  the  excellence  of  our  Protestant 
translation,  or  of  the  importance  of  education  and  of  the  virtue  and 


IMPORTANCE   OF   THE    SUBJECT.  21 

intelligence  of  the  people  to  the  preservation  of  our  great  distinctive 
Institutions.  But  I  do  not  consider  flippant  newspaper  paragraphs 
charged  with  prejudice  or  sectarian  hate  fit  or  becoming  a  subject  so 
vital  and  of  so  tremendous  a  magnitude  and  reach.  For  nearly  or  quite 
half  a  century  it  has  been  agitated  with  extraordinary  intellect  and 
earnestness.  It  has  attracted  the  attention  of  the  governments  of 
France,  Prussia,  Holland,  Belgium  and  Austria,  while  in  this  country 
and  throughout  the  British  Islands  and  Colonies,  especially  in  Scot- 
land and  Ireland,  it  has  been  regarded  as  one  of  the  deepest  and  most 
absorbing  interest.  And  in  but  few,  if  in  any  of  these  countries  has 
a  great  system  of  national  education  been  finally  adjusted,  or  settled 
on  such  a  basis,  as  to  render  it  permanent  and  successful.  In  fact, 
if  I  may  form  an  opinion  from  the  leading  Reviews  of  Great  Britain, 
I  should  say  the  public  mind  there  is  now  more  unsettled  than  ever — 
not  as  to  the  importance  of  the  subject — nor  as  to  the  disposition  of 
the  Government  and  of  the  people  to  give  it  due  attention — but  as  to 
the  details  of  a  system,  or  of  systems  that  will  work  the  best  for  an 
empire  so  vast  and  of  so  many  peoples  and  so  many  religions.  And 
if  where  Christianity  is  by  law  established,  and  that  in  several  dif- 
ferent forms,  as  Episcopacy,  Papacy  and  Presbytery,  and  where  even 
Bome  support  is  given  by  the  Government  or  was  given  to  Paganism 
until  very  recently — if  I  say  under  a  Government  of  so  much  wealth, 
power,  energy,  enlightenment  and  Christianity  as  that  of  England, 
this  subject  is  still  beset  with  great  difficulties,  why  should  it  be 
thought  a  strange  thing,  that  some  experiments  with  them,  and  some 
of  a  like  nature  with  ourselves  should  have  worked  badly  ?  If  all 
the  inhabitants  of  a  State  professed  the  same  religion,  the  subject 
would  be  divested  at  once  of  many — if  not  of  all  its  difficulties.  And 
it  is  just  in  the  fact  that  in  our  earlier  history  there  was  a  greater 
unanimity  of  religious  sentiments  among  us,  that  we  find  the  reason 
why,  there  was  but  little  if  any  difficulty  experienced  on  this  subject 
fifty  years  ago  or  on  the  first  settlement  of  the  country.  It  is  obvious 
then  that  in  the  proportion  that  our  population  is  scattered — and  of 
diffi3rent  national  prejudices  and  religious  creeds — just  in  the  same 
proportion  is  the  difficulty  increased  of  devising  a  system  that  shall  be 
the  most  eff"ective  and  at  the  same  time  be  according  to  the  genius  of 
our  institutions  and  in  conformity  with  the  great  principles  of  an 
enlightened  Christianity.  This  system  I  beheve  to  be  :  Public  In- 
struction free — absolutely  free  from  everything  that  distinguishes  one 
sect  or  denomination,  or  one  religion  from  another — leaving  every 
human  being  perfectly  free  to  exercise  his  own  mind  and  conscience 
in  regard  to  religion  in  whatever  way  he  may  choose — and  leaving 
the  religion  of  the  country  in  every  respect  to  depend  lohoUy  aud 
solely  upon  the  protection  guaranteed  by  the  Government  and  upon 
the  voluntary  support  of  the  people.  If  the  word  of  Jehovah  cannot 
stand  by  itself  before  the  dagon  of  infidelity  and  superstition,  then  I 
shall  begin  to  fear  for  its  ultimate  triumph )  and  if  Christianity  with 
an  open,  fair  field  cannot  make  its  way  without  political  patronage, 


22  THE   BIBLE   AND    POLITICS. 

then  I  must  say  I  altogether  misapprehend  its  nature,  and  have  failed 
to  learn  anything  from  the  history  of  its  early  struggles  and  triumphs. 
These  points  will  claim  our  attention  in  another  place. 

It  is  an  old  Latin  proverb  that  great  men  are  not  always  wise.  It 
is  certainly  true  that  some  men  of  liberal  education  and  amiable  dis- 
position are  not  always  logically  consistent.  They  are  not  willing  or 
able  to  carry  out  their  own  principles  to  their  last  consequences,  or  to 
abide  by  them  on  all  questions.  Some  learned  men  accept,  in  gene- 
ral thesis,  principles  which  they  deny  the  moment  these  principles 
receive  a  particular  application ;  and  so,  also,  there  are  others  who 
fall  into  error  in  just  the  contrary  way  ]  that  is,  they  make  a  particu- 
lar application  of  a  principle  which  they  deny  as  a  general  thesis. 
And  just  here  it  seems  to  me,  and  I  say  it  in  perfect  candor  and 
kindness,  is  mainly  the  fallacy  of  my  friends  whose  opinions  on  the 
subject  of  this  Tractate  I  am  opposing.  According  to  the  best  judg- 
ment I  can  form,  in  arguing  for  the  compulsory  use  of  the  English 
Bible  in  the  Public  Schools,  they  seem  to  me,  either  to  have  fallen 
into  wrong  logical  positions,  or  to  be  outright  advocates  of  a  union 
of  Church  and  State,  which  I  do  not  think  they  desire,  and  if  they 
do,  I  am  quite  sure  they  will  never  succeed,  for  they  will  quarrel 
among  themselves  as  to  which  church  is  to  be  united  to  the  State ;' 
nor  need  they  be  so  alarmed  about  my  becoming  "  Pope,^^  for  I  have 
too  many  competitors.  I  mean,  that,  in  contending  for  freedom  of 
conscience,  in  thesi,  they  apply  their  principles  practically  to  the 
coercing  of  the  conscience  of  their  fellow  citizens ;  and  so,  on  the 
other  hand,  they  contend  for  laws  to  compel  their  fellow  citizen  tax- 
payers, entitled  to  as  much  freedom  of  conscience  as  they  are  them- 
selves, to  the  use  of  their  Bible,  and  yet  their  profession  is,  iperfect 
freedom  of  conscience.  The  case  looks  to  me  like  that  of  the  lawyer 
and  the  gored  ox  in  the  old  speller.     Their  rule  works  only  one  way. 

I  know  that  the  martyrs  for  conscience's  sake — "  the  pioneers  of 
the  soul's  freedom" — have  generally  been  misrepresented  and  sus- 
pected by  their  contemporaries,  and  have  been  often  proscribed  as 
the  enemies  of  religion  and  of  the  State,  even  for  the  very  eJBforts  that 
showed  they  were  most  studiously  cherishing  their  dearest  interests. 
Their  opinions  have  been  distorted  and  disjointed,  and  perverted  and 
carried  out  to  absurd  and  unauthorized  conclusions.  They  were 
charged  with  holding  as  essential,  doctrines  that  they  expressly 
denied ;  but  still  weak  opponents  reiterated  the  charges,  because 
they  were  unable  to  meet  them  in  honest  argument.  It  is  a  general 
failing,  in  all  controversies,  to  ascribe  to  those  holding  opposite 
views  results  which  they  deny.  I  do  not  wish  it  to  be  understood, 
therefore,  that  I  believe  the  advocates  of  the  measures  I  oppose  are 
prepared  to  avow  the  results  which  must  inevitably  flow  from  them ; 
but,  to  my  mind,  they  do  inevitably  lead  to  them. 

Every  thinking  man  will  say  at  once  that  a  subject  like  this  can- 
not be  disposed  of  by  exhortations  and  emotions,  however  eloquently 
expressed.     It  must  be  settled  on  principle.     And  to  settle  it  on 


i 


TAXES   WITHOUT    REPRESENTATION.  23 

principle,  the  discussion  should  be  a  fair  one,  and  the  issues-  fairly 
stated  and  fully  met.  I  do  not  profess  to  be  able  to  do  all  this,  but 
I  am  trying  to  do  my  humble  part ;  anckthe  better  to  do  this,  some 
preliminaries  ought  to  be  settled.  For  example,  we  ask  and  we  insist 
upon  it,  that,  before  we  take  the  taxes  of  our  fellow  citizens  to  support 
schools  that  are  to  use  a  book  or  books  that,  in  their  consciences, 
they  do  not  wish  their  children  to  read  or  hear  read,  we  should  know 
definitely  what  we  have  to  submit  to.  Agree  among  yourselves,  gen- 
tlemen, whether  it  is  King  James'  translation  that  is  to  be  used,  or 
^ome  other — whether  it  is  to  be  the  complete  translation,  or  extracts 
from  it,  and  whether  the  reading  is  to  be  with  or  without  comments, 
with  or  without  prayers  and  psalms  or  hymns ;  and  whether  the  Bible 
is  to  be  used  by  the  teachers  only,  or  by  the  teachers  and  pupils — 
whether  it  is  to  be  a  mere  ritual  for  the  opening  of  the  school,  or  to  be 
used,  as  the  Rev.  Dr.  Peck  argues,  as  a  text-book  for  the  acquirement  of 
secular  knowledge  or  not.  It  seems  to  me  we  have  a  right  to  know  ex- 
actly what  is  to  be  done  on  all  these  points,  before  any  money  is  used  to 
violate  the  consciences  of  any  of  our  fellow  citizens.  I  cannot  see  that 
this,  as  a  preliminary,  is  not  to  the  point,  for  the  real  grievance  against 
which  I  am  protesting  is,  that  citizens  are  made  to  pay  taxes  on  school 
account,  and  that  in  these  schools  a  religion  is  to  be  taught  which 
these  citizen  tax-payers  either  do  not  believe  at  all,  or  do  not  believe 
to  be  correctly  taught,  and  which,  at  all  events,  they  do  not  wish  to 
be  thus  taught  to  their  children.  I  understand  it  to  be,  when  all 
disguises  are  removed,  taxation  without  representation,  and  for  the 
purpose  of  oppressing  the  conscience  of  a  minority  in  matters  of  reli- 
gion, by  teaching  a  religion  that  is  contrary  to  their  conscience. 
And  was  it  for  tliis  Americans  declared  their  independence  of  the 
mother  country  ?  Explain  it  as  you  may,  it  amounts  to  this.  On  the 
contrary,  /  hold  that  no  man  is  to  he  taxed  for  the  support  of  the 
religious  services  of  another,  whether  they  are  performed  in  a  school- 
room, meeting-house  or  cathedral.  How,  in  the  face  of  the  great 
American  doctrine  of  perfect  religious  freedom,  can  a  Board  of 
School  Directors  require  a  Bible  to  be  read  in  a  school,  supported  by 
my  taxes,  to  the  extent  of  my  taxable  property,  to  my  children, 
when  I  tell  them  that  I  do  not  believe,  in  my  conscience,  that  that 
Bible  is  the  Word  of  God,  and  that  I  do  not  wish  my  children  to 
hear  it  ?  Under  our  laws,  how  is  it  possible  to  take  the  taxes  of  C 
to  pay  a  teacher  of  religion  to  his  children,  which  religion  he  (C) 
does  not  believe  in,  or,  if  he  does,  he  does  not  wish  it  to  be  taught  in 
that  way,  or  by  such  a  teacher,  to  his  children  ?  What  is  the  diifer- 
ence  between  doing  this,  and  taxing  me  to  support  a  pastor  and  a 
church  service  that  I  do  not  believe,  for  the  benefit  of  my  neighbor? 
We  are  here  laying  foundations  to-day  not  only  for  half  a  million, 
but  for  many  millions  of  inhabitants.  We  are  to  legislate  for  many 
generations,  at  least  as  far  as  precedent  and  example  can  go.  It  is 
not  then  for  one  sect,  or  a  majority  of  sects,  but  for  a  hundred  gene- 
rations, and  for  all  coming  time  that  we  are  called  upon  to  act.     Let 


U\BRA;?^ 


Or 


24  THE    BIBLE   AND  POLITICS. 

US  know  distinctly  what  we  are  going  to  do — if  we  are  to  have  new 
laws  or  new  interpretations  of  old  laws  on  this  subject.  It  will  be 
borne  in  mind  that  those  whose  opinions  I  am  opposing  are  calling  all 
the  time  for  more  laws  on  this  subject,  urging  the  Legislature  and 
the  School  Commissioners  to  require  the  use  of  the  Bible,  without 
regard  to  the  conscience  either  of  the  School  teachers  or  of  the 
parents. 

That  a  knowledge  of  the  contents  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  is  vital  to 
salvation  is  not  to  the  point — does  not  prove  that  it  is  •'  the  impera- 
tive duty  of  every  Christian  and  of  every  lover  of  his  country"  to 
place  the  Bible  by  stress  of  law  in  the  Public  Schools;  first,  because 
Christ  has  not  commissioned  his  people  to  do  this  thing  in  this  way. 
He  has  never  authorized  them  to  employ  the  secular  arm  to  oppress 
their  fellow  man's  conscience,  even  for  the  sake  of  saving  his  soul. 
He  did  say,  '^  Suffer  little  children  to  come  to  me,''  but  He  did  not 
say  send  them  to  Caesar  that  he  may  teach  them  how  to  be  saved. 
Secondly,  if  it  be  the  imperative  duty  of  Christians  and  patriots  to 
place  the  Bible  by  law  in  our  Public  Schools,  because  a  knowledge  of 
it  is  vital  to  salvation,  then  it  is  equally  their  imperative  duty  to 
have  Christ  crucified  preached  in  the  Public  Schools,  because  ''  there 
is  no  other  name  under  heaven  given  among  men  whereby  they  can 
be  saved,  except  the  name  of  Christ."  There  is  no  possible  escape 
from  this  application  of  the  argument,  if  the  premises  are  true.  The 
force  of  it  is  thus  :  It  is  the  imperative  duty  of  Christians  and  pa- 
triots to  place  the  Bible  in  our  Public  Schools,  because  it  is  vital  to 
salvation.  But  even  the  advocates  of  this  imperative  duty  do  not 
believe  that  a  mere  letter  knowledge  of  the  Bible  is  sufficient  to  save 
the  soul.  By  no  means.  They  expect  salvation  through  Christ  only. 
The  Bible  in  the  public  schools  is,  therefore,  only  a  part  of  their 
duty ;  and  according  to  this  argument,  if  it  is  really  their  imperative 
duty  to  have  the  Bible  read  in  the  Public  Schools,  it  is  their  impera- 
tive duty  to  go  further  and  turn  the  school-houses  into  chapels,  or 
meeting-houses.  There  is  no  stopping  place  short  of  the  use  of  the 
whole  means  ordained  of  God  for  the  salvation  of  the  soul. 

There  ought  to  be  no  half-way  house  in  the  curriculum  of  the 
school-room,  if  this  argument  is  correct.  But  this  leads  to  an  estab- 
lished religion  by  law,  and  so  far  as  the  support  of  such  a  school  is 
from  the  State,  so  far  the  State  supports  the  religion  thus  taught,  and 
in  that  favors  and  shows  preference  for  one  religion  over  all  others. 
Now,  fellow  citizens,  are  you  prepared  for  this  ?  I  trust  not.  That 
I  am  not  mistaken  in  the  reach  of  this  "imperative  duty,"  the  Rev. 
Dr.  Anderson,  (p.  4)  in  speakimg  of  this  imperative  duty,  says  : 
*'  Hence,  the  base-line  which  you  establish  for  them,  the  children  of 
the  Public  Schools,  must  be  one  from  which  they  can  work  outward, 
onward  and  upward  into  a  happy  eternity.  It  must  embrace  the 
entire  teachings  concerning  the  being  and  attributes  of  God ;  con- 
cerning moral  law ;  human  relations  and  obligations ;  the  fall ; 
regeneration  and  atonement !  !     And  the  Rev.  Dr.  Peck  says,  certain 


NOT  GUNPOWDER   NOR   DECREES.  25 

great  facts  must  be  recognized  in  the  Public  Schools,  as  "  the  moral 
constitution  of  the  children,  their  accountability  to  God,  the  eternity 
of  their  existence,  their  depravitij,  their  need  of  regeneration^  their 
dependance  on  the  world's  Redeemer."  Now,  how  can  the  State 
recognize  such  "  facts"  if  as  to  its  fundamental  laws  it  has  no  religion  ? 
And  how  can  such  "  facts'^  be  recognized  in  Public  Schools  that  are 
provided  for  all  sorts  of  religionists  by  *^  an  equitable  distribution  of 
the  burden."  And  yet  in  these  Public  Schools  no  distinctive  religion 
is  to  be  taught!  I  cannot  comprehend  how  such  "facts"  are  to  be 
recognized  without  religion. 

And  again.  Dr.  Peck  will  have  the  Bible  used  as  a  text-book  daily 
throughout  the  whole  course  of  education.  And  yet  these  reverend 
Doctors,  with  the  New  York  Doctor  leading  the  way,  think  all  this 
«an  be  done  without  any  sectarianism,  and  without  any  just  cause  of 
prejudice  or  of  complaint  from  the  consciences  of  those  who  do  not 
believe  such  doctrines.  "  It  must  embrace  the  entire  teachings  con- 
cernijig  the  being  and  attributes  of  God )  concerning  moral  law ; 
human  relations  and  obligations]  the  fall)  regeneration  and  atone- 
ment ^  Why,  it  is  as  much  as  our  ablest  theological  professors  can 
possibly  do  to  give  the  students  in  our  seminaries — the  schools  of  the 
prophets — such  '*  entire  teachings." 

If  these  views  are  correct,  we  must  turn  our  Public  Schools  into 
theological  seminaries,  and  in  appointing  teachers  we  must  select  men 
eminent  for  their  attainments  as  divines.  Is  this  justice  to  the  Israel- 
ites ?  And  are  the  Unitarians  prepared  to  have  these  dogmas 
taught  in  schools  supported  by  their  taxes  ?  Nor  is  it  without  sig- 
nificance that  tnis  urging  of  this  '^imperative  duty,  "  is  but  a  part  of 
the  scheme.  It  comes  from  the  same  writers  and  speakers  whose 
wailings  are  so  plaintively  lifted  up,  because  their  is  no  chaplain  in 
our  Legislative  halls,  and  no  Sabbath  laws  of  a  stringent  type  in  force. 
I  say  nothing  of  the  ultraisms  of  Dr.  Cheever.  But  their  whole 
system  is  legislation — legislation,  and  still  legislation  to  make  men 
moral  and  religious.  And  this  I  am  fully  persuaded  is  a  radical 
error.  I  think  with  Jerrold,  that  gunpowder  is  not  the  best  frank- 
incense, nor  the  gleaming  of  bayonets  the  brightest  light  of  the  Gos- 
pel. I  do  not  believe  we  can  make  men  or  children  love  God  by 
compelling  them  to  read  or  hear  the  Bible.  It  is  truth  and  love,  and 
not  constraint  of  statutes  that  makes  men  moral  and  pious. 

And  I  must  add  here,  that  with  all  possible  personal  respect,  I 
am  wholly  unable  to  comprehend  the  consistency  of  saying,  in  one 
breath,  we  do  not  want  any  sectarianism  in  the  schools,  and  with  the 
next  that  we  must  recognize  such  ''  facts,"  a^  come  within  the  "entire 
teachings  of  the  Bible  and  of  the  being  and  attributes  of  God,"  "  the 
necessity  of  regeneration,"  "the  atonement"— everything  that  is 
necessary  to  carry  the  children  "  upward  into  a  happy  eternity. " 
This  is  all  that  the  Church  with  its  ordinances,  sacraments  and  doc- 
trines can  do. 

And  then  again,  my  friends  seem  to  misapprehend  both  the  laws 


26  THE   BIBLE   AND    POLITICS. 

and  the  facts  as  they  now  exist  in  regard  to  the  Public  Schools. 
Their  own  statements  are  at  variance  on  the  subject.  But  in  one 
point,  they  are  altogether  in  error.  The  Legislature  has  not  ^'  robbed 
the  children  of  their  Bible,  ^'  nor  is  there  any  illiberahty  or  oppres- 
sion that  I  can  find  in  ^'the  school  law  ^'  of  the  state,  or  of  the  Rules 
and  Manual  of  the  school  directors.  The  33d  section  of  the  school 
law  of  the  statutes  of  1855  declares  :  ^'  No  books,  tracts  or  papers  of  a 
sectarian  or  denominational  character  shall  be  used  or  introduced  in 
any  school  established  under  the  provisions  of  this  act ;  nor  shall  sec- 
tarian or  denominational  doctrines  be  taught  therein. ''  Now  if  it  be 
true,  as  they  contend  that  our  Protestant  Bible  is  not  a  sectarian 
book,  then  there  is  no  prohibition  of  it  by  the  law.  But  if  as  I  con- 
sider it,  our  Bible  is  a  sectarian  book,  then  we  ought  not  to  wish 
to  compel  its  use  in  the  schools,  unless  we  wish  to  make  them  reli- 
gious sectarian  institutions.  Some  years  ago,  I  understand  a  law 
was  passed  for  the  schools  in  this  city,  requiring  them  to  be  opened 
with  prayer  and  reading  the  Bible ;  but  practically  it  was  left  to  the 
feelings  of  the  teachers,  whether  it  should  be  carried  out  or  not. 
This  law  is  not  repealed,  but  I  believe  it  is  not  generally  practiced. 
But  few  of  the  teachers  desire  to  perform  such  a  duty.  As  far  as  I 
can  understand  it,  no  more  laws  are  needed  on  the  subject.  The 
teachers,  the  directors  and  the  courts  are  competent,  and  I  think 
altogether  the  most  competent  persons  to  decide  how  to  apply  the 
laws  so  as  to  promote  social  peace  and  the  prosperity  of  the  schools. 
I  have  not  therefore  been  able  to  see  the  propriety  or  necessity  of  the 
agitation  that  has  been  so  laboriously  carried  on. 


IV. 

The  Simple   Question  Stated. 

Any  thoughtful  man  who  looks  over  the  newspaper  articles  and 
pamphlets  recently  called  forth  on  this  subject,  especially  in  New 
York,  will  conclude  that  there  is  not  only  a  want  of  some  well- 
digested  plan  by  which  to  harmonize  the  advocates  of  public  schools, 
but  that  on  many  of  the  points  and  bearings  of  the  .great  subject, 
there  is  almost  a  total  want  of  clearness  of  ideas.  Some  confusion  of 
ideas  is  always  to  be  expected  in  new  discussions,  or  in  young  and 
inexperienced  advocates  of  old  subjects.  And,  besides,  our  ideas  of 
Church  and  State,  and  of  the  distinction  between  the  spheres  of  the 
legislature  and  of  the  Church,  are  very  much  embarrassed  by  traditions 
from  our  fatherlands.  It  were  then  very  much  to  be  desired,  that 
all  who  are  truly  the  advocates  of  Christianity  and  of  a  liberal  educa- 
tion, could  understand  the  whole  question.  And  as  I  am  not  writing 
about  abstractions,  nor  for  literary  pleasure,  but  about  matters  that  are 


I 


NO   OBJECTION   TO  THE   BIBLE.  27 

upon  us,  and  in  which  we  and  our  children  have  great  present  and 
future  interests,  let  us  understand  here  some  points  that  may  show 
us  what  the  real  question  is  : 

1.  There  are  some  who  profess  to  be  indifferent  to  all  religions, 
and  who  do  not  desire  their  children  to  be  taught,  especially  when 
very  young,  any  religious  creed.  They  wish  their  children  to  grow 
up,  as  to  the  dogmas  of  religion,  perfectly  neutral,  or  that  their  minds 
may  be  blanks — white  sheets — to  receive  whatever  creed,  or  opinions, 

*or  prejudices,  they  may  "elect  to  choose"  after  they  have  arrived  at 
mature  years.  This  class  is  probably  few  in  number.  But  they  are 
citizens  and  taxpayers,  and  as  fully  guaranteed,  as  I  hope  to  show,  in 
their  rights  and  privileges  by  our  Constitution  and  laws,  as  the  most 
pious  Methodist,  orthodox  Presbyterian,  or  Episcopalian,  in  the  land. 
I  believe  this  method  of  education  unnatural,  unphilosophical,  and 
impossible,  and  sincerely  regret  that  any  one  entertains  views  so 
erroneous,  and  hesitate  not  to  say,  that  if  it  were  practicable  to  carry 
out  such  a  system  of  education,  it  would  utterly  degrade  and  ruin  the 
country.  The  religion  of  the  Bible  is  the  only  sure  foundation  of 
rational  freedom  and  virtue.  While,  therefore,  I  am,  from  deep  and 
growing  conviction  and  long  investigation,  attached  sincerely  and 
conscientiously  to  the  faith  which  I  profess,  still  it  is  not  for  me  to 
judge  any  man  for  professing  another,  or  for  rejecting  all  religion. 
I  may  believe — most  firmly  believe — he  is  in  error,  and  deeply  de- 
plore bin  error,  and  may  endeavor  by  argument,  reason,  and  love,  to 
persuade  him  to  renounce  his  errors;  but  the  responsibility  of  holding 
them  is  his,  not  mine.  It  is  not  for  me  to  make  a  Procrustean  bed 
and  compel  my  neighbor  to  lie  in  it,  and  if  he  is  too  short  for  it 
stretch  him  out,  or  if  he  is  too  long,  chop  off  his  legs.  But  still 
let  it  be  distinctly  stated  and  remembered  here,  that  we  do  not  wish 
the  education  of  any  child  to  be  conducted  without  religion.  We 
desire  every  child  in  the  land  to  read  the  Bible  and  have  a  know- 
ledge of  Christianity.  This  is  not  then  a  point  at  issue  in  these 
pages. 

2.  Another  class  have  so  much  reverence  for  the  Divine  Word 
that  they  do  not  wish  it  to  be  made  a  text  book  in  Public  Schools, 
believing  that  the  thumb ing  of  the  Sacred  Volume,  and  the  reading 
of  it  as  a  daily  task,  or  even  the  compulsory  attendance  upon  the 
reading  of  it,  diminishes  the  reverence  of  children  for  it,  and  lifts  its 
awful  authority  in  a  great  measure  from  their  minds.  It  is  not  my 
purpose  here  to  examine  into  the  merits  of  this  objection  to  the  use 
of  the  Bible  in  ordinary  schools.  I  respect  these  feelings,  but  it  is 
not  my  purpose  to  dwell  on  this  point.  This  is  not  the  ground  here 
occupied. 

3.  Others  are  opposed  to  the  use  of  the  Bible  in  all  ordinary  day 
schools,  private  or  public,  on  the  ground  that  it  is  not  a  book  fit  to 
be  read  by  the  young.  They  are  willing,  perhaps,  to  have  extracts 
from  it,  or  an  expurgated  edition  introduced  into  the  course  of  school 
reading;  but  not  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  of  our    Lord  and 


28  THE   BIBLE   AND   POLITICS. 

Saviour.  With  this  objection  I  have  no  sympathy.  The  points  at 
issue  on  this  subject,  so  far  as  I  am  concerned,  do  not  relate  to  the 
Inspiration  of  the  Scriptures,  nor  to  the  character  of  the  Word  of  God, 
nor  as  to  the  comparative  merits  of  its  different  translations.  There 
is  no  objection  in  my  mind  to  the  use  of  the  Word  of  God  in  the 
Public  Schools,  if  it  can  be  done  by  common  consent,  and  without 
doing  injustice  or  violence  to  the  conscience  of  the  teacher,  parent, 
or  guardian.  The  simple  question  is  this  :  Ought  the  Legislature  to 
tax  a  Catholic  to  have  the  Protestant  Bihle  read  to  or  taught  to  his 
child',  or  ought  the  Legislature  to  tax  a  Protestant  to  have  his  child 
taught  the  Catholic's  Bible  ?  And  must  a  teacher  of  the  Public 
Schools  read  the  Bible,  or  for  his  conscientioiis  objections  to  it  be 
dismissed  from  the  school  ?     This  is  the  question  as  I  understand  it. 

By  the  Bible  in  this  discussion,  and  I  suppose  in  this  whole  con- 
troversy throughout  our  country,  those  who  wish  to  compel  its  use  in 
the  Public  Schools  mean  the  Protestant  Bible  of  King  James,  and 
by  Public  Schools  are  meant  such  as  are  supported  by  taxes  on 
property  and  free  to  all.  Common  pay  schools,  individual  and  de- 
nominational schools,  are  not  properly  subjects  of  remark  in  this 
discussion  further  than  by  way  of  illustration.  All  my  life  I  have 
been  trying  to  teach  my  fellow  men  to  understand  the  Word  of  God, 
and  to  persuade  tLem  to  be  religious,  but  not  in  such  a  way  as  to 
offer  any  violence  to  their  own  free  will,  nor  to  the  rights  of  their 
consciences,  nor  to  oppress  them  in  their  rights  of  property  and  pur- 
suits of  life  on  account  of  any  difference  of  religion. 

It  is  plain  then  that  remarks  on  the  sublime  literature  of  the 
Word  of  God,  "its  morality  and  piety,"  and  high  and  holy  principles, 
the  preciousness  of  Revelation,  and  of  the  Christian's  hopes,  and  of 
the  value  of  religious  instruction  in  youth,  do  not  properly  belong  to 
the  points  in  hand.  We  rejoice  in  all  that  Washington  and  the  fra- 
mers  of  our  Constitution  have  said  in  favor  of  religion,  education  and 
morality.  And  we  rejoice  that  they  did  not  make  a  single  organic 
law  connecting  the  Church  of  God  with  the  State,  or  fetter  the  dif- 
ferent religious  sects  by  statutory  provisions.  Eloquent  extracts  from 
Mr.  Webster  and  John  Foster  on  the  importance  of  morality  and  reli- 
gion, and  on  the  importance  of  virtue  to  the  well  being  of  a  State,  are 
evidences  of  good  taste,  and  we  are  always  glad  to  see  such  noble  senti- 
ments before  the  publio  mind ;  but  they  are  altogether  foreign  from 
the  points  at  issue.  The  question  is:  Shall  the  English  Protestant 
Bible  be  used  by  compulsion  in  our  Public  Schools?  Shall  it  be  read 
by  law  in  the  Public  Schools  that  are  supported  by  taxes  levied  upon 
all  citizens  according  to  the  property  they  possess,  and  without  any 
regard  to  their  religious  faith,  or  want  of  all  religion?  This  is  the 
question,  and  nothing  else. 

For  a  popular  goverment  like  ours,  to  levy  taxes  by  popular  vote, 
and  establish  free  Public  Schools  by  the  same  sovereign  act — an  act 
of  the  same  power  that  has  established  perfect  freedom  and  equality 
of  civil  and  religious  rights,  and  then  require  that  all  the  children 


THIS   QUESTION   IN   EUROPE.  29 

educated  in  these  schools,  without  respect  to  the  religions  or  wishes 
of  their  parents,  should  all  be  taught  and  compelled  to  learn  one  reli- 
gion, the  Protestant — this  is  a  monstrous  inconsistency  absolutely- 
unknown,  as  far  as  I  know,  in  any  other  country.  In  the  education 
of  children,  the  rights  of  conscience,  as  to  religion,  are  not  violated 
in  the  monarchies  of  the  old  world — not  even  in  those  governments 
which  Americans  are  wont  to  think  oppressive  and  tyrannical.  In 
France  the  schools  are  divided  into  Israelite,  Protestant  and  Catholic, 
but  there  is  no  compulsion.  A  Catholic  child  is  not  compelled  to 
read,  or  hear  read,  a  Protestant  book,  nor  a  Protestant  child  to  study 
the  Catholic  ritual.  And  the  lectures  of  the  Institute  of  France,  and 
other  national  schools  in  Paris,  are  absolutely  free  to  all  nations  with- 
out fee  or  religious  test.  In  Great  Britain  it  may  be  said,  as  a  general 
rule,  that  the  funds  are  divided  among  the  churches  and  sects.  There 
are,  however,  what  are  called  national  schools,  particulary  in  Ireland, 
in  which,  if  any  parent  objects,  the  Bible  is  not  read,  and  no  book, 
objected  to  on  religious  grounds,  is  allowed  on  any  account  to  be 
brought  into  the  school-room.  The  school-houses  are  never  to  be 
used  for  any  other  purpose  than  that  of  teaching,  and  the  teachers 
are  not  allowed  to  attend  political  meetings,  nor  even  fairs.  Lord 
Derby  and  Archbishop  Whately  are  at  the  head  of  these  national 
schools.  Besides,  there  are  schools  known  as  the  Catholic,  Protest- 
ant and  Church  of  England  schools,  which  are,  in  part,  supported  by 
the  government.  On  the  continent  generally,  the  fund  for  education 
is  so  divided  that  Israelites,  Lutherans,  Calvinists  and  Catholics  edu- 
cate their  own  children  in  their  own  schools,  or  after  their  own  creed, 
with  the  assistance  of  the  government,  and  without  oppression  one 
from  another.  No  government  has  a  better  system  of  public  educa- 
tion than  that  of  Prussia.  The  Bible  is  the  basis  of  religious  instruc- 
tion in  all  the  Prussian  schools.  "But  the  Protestant  children  are 
taught  from  the  Protestant  translation,  and  the  Catholic  children  from 
the  Catholic  translation,  and  the  Jewish  children  from  the  Old  Tes- 
tament." *  The  government  is  very  careful,  however,  where  the  reli- 
gious instruction  is  committed  to  parents  or  to  teachers  of  their  own 
creed  to  see  that  it  is  faithfully  attended  to.  The  Superintendent  of 
public  instruction  is  always  a  Protestant  j  but  in  selecting  subordi- 
nate administrators,  the  most  scrupulous  regard  is  paid  to  the  reli- 
gious views  of  the  people  of  the  district.  If  a  majority  of  the  parish 
are  Catholics,  then  the  majority  of  the  school  committee  must  be 
Catholics,  and,  of  course,  the  minority  Protestants,  and  just  the 
reverse  where  the  majority  is  Protestant.  The  population  of  the 
kingdom  of  Prussia  is  about  17,000,000,  and  may  be  divided  as  fol- 
lows:  500,000  Jews;  7,000,000  Catholics;  9,000,000  Lutherans 
and  Calvinists,  and  the  rest  Baptists.  The  government  of  their 
schools  is  paternal  and  religious ;  and  yet  the  discipline  is  equal  to 
that  of  military  institutes.  I  suppose  Prussians  now  the  best  edu- 
cated people  in  the  world.  School  duties  among  them  rest,  in  all 
respects,  on  the  same  ground  as  military  duty.     Nor  do  I  see  that 

*  Dr.  Stowe  on  Prussian  Education. 


30  THE   BIBLE   AND    POLITICS. 

we  can  do  better  than  place  the  government  of  our  schools  and  State 
University  under  military  discipline. 

In  the  schools  of  our  fathers  our  catechisms  were  taught,  and  reli- 
gion as  such  was  a  part  of  the  regular  course  of  study,  and  where 
there  is  unity  of  sentiment,  this  may  be  done  still.  There  is,  how- 
ever, as  I  design  to  show  in  another  chapter,  a  great  difference 
between  the  schools  of  our  fathers  even  fifty  years  ago  and  the  Public 
Schools  of  our  day.  In  former  times,  it  was  left  chiefly  to  the  parents 
or  to  the  Church  to  educate  the  young.  Now  the  State  kindly  and 
properly  undertakes  to  help;  and  because  of  this  help  from  the  State, 
a  new  question  has  grown  up,  namely,  how  far  parents  and  Churches 
may  avail  themselves  of  Caesar's  purse  in  educating  their  children, 
and  yet  not  let  Caesar  be  their  religious  teacher.  This  question  is 
now  agitating  all  civilized  nations. 

For  the  sake  of  a  distinct  and  clear  understanding  of  this  sub- 
ject, I  would  consider  Schools  and  Colleges  as  of  three  kinds :  State 
institutions,  denominational  institutions  and  sectarian  institutions. 
Institutions  of  learning  that  are  established  by  the  State  and  sup- 
ported by  the  State  treasury,  or  by  the  taxes  on  the  property  of  citi- 
zens, are  for  the  purpose  of  giving  our  children  a  secular  education ; 
that  is,  imparting  to  them  a  knowledge  of  all  branches  of  human 
learning  that  may  make  them  intelligent  and  useful  members  of 
society.  Such  institutions  are  confined  to  secular  education,  and  I 
do  not  see  how  they  can  undertake,  according  to  our  laws,  to  teach 
religion  at  all,  or  to  force  the  use  of  any  book  because  it  is  a  religious 
book.     Surely  we  do  not  wish  the  State  to  teach  us  religion. 

By  denominational  Schools  and  Colleges,  I  understand  institutions 
founded  by  voluntary  contributions,  and  managed  by  ecclesiastical 
authorities,  or  by  trustees  for  ecclesiastical  bodies,  a  majority  of 
whom  at  least  shall  always  belong  to  the  denomination  establishing 
and  conducting  the  institution.  If  trustees  of  other  denominations 
are  elected,  it  is  a  mere  compliment  and  in  no  wise  a  departure  from 
the  rule  or  principle  that  the  institution  is  under  the  control  of  the 
denomination  or  sect,  or  Church,  that  has  established  it  and  properly 
so.  The  advantage  of  a  denominational  school  or  college  consists 
in  this,  that  there  is  unity  and  energy  in  its  management,  and 
harmony  in  its  religious  tendencies,  so  far  as  it  may  be  deemed  expe- 
dient to  make  religion  prominent,  or  a  part  of  its  course.  And  the 
character  and  reputation  of  the  denomination,  sect  or  Church  to 
which  it  belongs,  is  a  guarantee  to  the  public  that  it  shall  be  well 
conducted,  and  that  its  curriculum  of  studies  shall  be  in  good  faith. 

Now  a  denominational  college  may  not  be  a  sectarian  institution. 
It  must  be,  it  is  true,  to  some  extent  a  reflector  of  the  theology  of  its 
denomination,  but  need  not  be  a  sectarian  institution.  I  suppose  a 
denominational  institution  might  be  so  managed  as  not  to  distinguish 
materially  or  essentially  between  many  of  the  churches.  And  gener- 
ally there  is  such  a  liberality  I  think  in  such  institutions,  that  no  of- 
fense is  given  in  the  instruction  imparted  to  any  of  the  classes.     This 


DENOMINATIONAL   SCHOOLS.  31 

course  is  pursued,  and  can  be  pursued  honestly  and  consistently  as 
I  think.  Such  an  institution,  however,  cannot  teach  or  allow  to  be 
taught  any  doctrine  contrary  to  the  faith  and  symbols  of  its  denomi- 
nation, but  it  may  not  teach  them  fully  or  distinctly  at  all.  For 
Example,  I  suppose  I  offend  no  one  when  I  say  that  the  school  of  an 
Episcopalian  clergyman  on  Bush  Street,  is  a  denominational  institu- 
tion. The  prayers  and  the  lessons  and  the  forms  of  religion  used 
there,  and  the  articles  of  religion,  as  far  as  they  are  taught  at  all,  are 
such  as  are  received  by  the  Episcopalian  Church ;  and  the  tendency 
of  all  its  influence  in  this  way,  and  to  this  extent,  is  to  make  all  its 
pupils  Episcopalians.  I  do  not  mention  this  as  a  reproach.  On  the 
contrary,  it  is  honest  and  right.  And  the  public  so  understand  it, 
and  parents  know  what  they  are  to  expect.  And  this  is  one  of  the 
advantages  of  a  denominational  school,  that  while  you  have  the  char- 
acter of  the  denomination  controlling  it  as  a  guarantee  for  its  good 
management,  you  also  have  its  orthodoxy  and  piety  as  a  guarantee 
that  your  child  in  such  a  school  will  not  be  poisoned  with  infidelity. 
I  suppose  the  same  illustration  to  hold  good  of  the  Jesuit  and  Metho- 
dist schools  at  Santa  Clara.  * 

Then  there  are  seminaries  to  educate  priests  and  ministers  that 
are  strictly  sectarian.     They  are  professional  schools. 

I  think  the  best  way  in  this  country,  where  we  have  every  shade 
of  opinion,  religious  and  political,  and  are  made  up  of  every  nation- 
ality, is  to  have  all  three  kinds  of  schools — State  institutions,  denomi- 
national and  sectarian  schools.  Let  the  basis  of  our  State  schools  be 
as  broad  as  our  Constitution,  and  as  free  as  our  laws  from  all  religious 
distinctions.  Let  our  Public  Schools,  like  our  Constitution  and  laws, 
be  so  wholly  disconnected  from  the  Church,  that  no  man's  religious 
opinions  or  conscience  will  be  offended  by  them.  Let  such  institu- 
tions be  confined  to  secular  education,  which  alone  comes  within  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  State.  Under  this  head,  I  would  place  our  Public 
Schools,  State  University,  Military  and  Naval  Institutes,  and  Far- 
mer's Colleges  and  the  like.  And  then,  let  there  be  a  generous 
rivalry  between  the  different  denominations  in  building  up,  by  united 
voluntary  efforts,  institutions  under  their  own  control,  and  for  which 
they  shall  be  held  responsible.  These  they  may  make  more  or  less 
religious,  as  they  may  deem  best.  And  Chen,  of  course,  each  sect 
or  Church  will  have  its  own  normal  schools,  or  sectarian  seminaries. 
The  religious  instruction  to  be  given  to  the  pupils  of  State  Schools 
must  be  provided  for  as  in  Prussia,  or  as  in  the  University  of  Vir- 
ginia, On  this  branch  of  the  subject  and  on  denominational  schools, 
I  do  not  design  to  dwell,  at  present,  nor  in  this  Tractate. 

Again,  and  thus  early  in  this  discussion,  it  may  be  well  to  say, 
that  it  is  of  no  consequence  as  to  the  merits  of  this  great  question  by 
whom  or  where  the  controversy  started.  It  has  nothing  to  do  with 
.  it  to  admit  or  deny  that  it  was  begun  by  this  or  that  part  of  the  pro- 
fessing Christian  population.  But  I  do  consider  that  it  is  important, 
to  do  justice  to  this  question,  that  we  rid  ourselves  of  prejudices 


82  THE    BIKLE   AND    POLITICS. 

against  foreigners,  and  especially  against  Roman  Catholics.  Even 
in  the  days  of  the  great  Luther,  it  was  altogether  too  much  a 
fight  between  Rome  and  Wittemberg,  between  Henry  the  Eighth 
and  the  Pope  as  a  sovereign ;  and  soon  all  Europe  became  and  still 
is  essentially  divided  into  antagonistic  States,  as  Reformers  and  Pa- 
pists, And,  if  I  am  not  greatly  mistaken,  there  is  still  so  much  of 
this  old  leaven  of  bitterness  between  Protestants  and  Catholics,  that 
this  subject  has  not  been  calmly  considered  in  the  broad  light  of 
truth,  nor  with  a  clear,  far-seeing  view  of  its  bearings  on  all  points  of 
our  horizon.  I  fear  the  '^  No  Popery  cry"  and  ''the  Jesuits'^  has 
prevented  good  men  from  seeing  the  real  merits  and  issues  of  this 
question.  With  a  large  portion  of  Protestants,  the  object  always  in 
view  is  Roma  delenda  est,  and  with  just  as  much  bitterness  and 
much  more  tact  and  system,  the  Jesuits  reply,  Down  with  all  heresy 
and  schism  !  Now  I  would  allay,  as  far  as  possible,  all  such  religious 
feuds  among  citizens.  I  would  not  open  the  door  for  contention 
among  citizens  of  different  creeds,  nor  allow  any  revival  of  the  strifes 
of  former  days,  when  our  ancestors,  led  by  priests  and  .ministers, 
contended  ^^en  to  blood.  But  my  friends  say,  ''  You  concede  all 
the  Romanists  ask.  You  are  fighting  their  battles  for  them.  You 
are  aiding  the  Jesuits.  You  have  turned  against  the  Protestants.'* 
Now  to  this  I  answer,  I  know  no  citizen  according  to  his  religious 
creed.  I  know  him  only  as  he  is  known  to  our  Constitution  and 
laws.  And  I  am  perfectly  sure,  if  all  American  citizens  will  only 
abide  strictly  by  our  fundamental  laws,  that  neither  Jesuits  nor 
any  other  power  will  ever  be  able  to  do  us  harm.  But  the  only 
safety  is  for  us  to  keep  close  to  the  Constitution,  and  refuse  to  allow 
any  constructions  to  be  put  upon  it,  or  any  legislating  under  it,  for 
any  cause,  or  on  any  plea  that  favors  any  form  or  book  of  religion, 
because  it  is  religious,  or  is  so  considered.  The  moment  we  do  this, 
we  put  into  the  hands  of  the  Legislature  a  two-edged  sword,  that 
may  cut  as  deeply  against  us  as  it  does  into  our  opponents,  and  the 
direction  in  which  it  is  to  be  driven  will  depend  on  mere  accidental  or 
temporary  majorities.  It  is  against  this,  my  fellow  citizens,  I  warn 
you.  I  would  rely  upon  the  fundamental  and  original  laws  of  our 
land,  just  as  they  are. 

And  I  answer  again,  that,  while  I  do  not  profess  to  wield  the  shield 
of  Ajax,  so  that  I  may  defend  all  who  sympathize  with  my  views  on 
this  subject,  still  I  insist  that  it  is  a  narrow  and  unfair  representation 
of  the  subject,  to  say  that  it  is  a  mere  controversy  by  which  alone  the 
Jesuits  are  to  be  benefitted,  and  that  it  is  for  the  advancement  of 
Roman  Catholics.  If  I  understand  the  merits  and  the  bearings  of 
this  subject  at  all,  it  is  one  that  deeply  concerns  every  American 
citizen,  without  any  reference  to  his  political  opinions  or  to  his  reli- 
gious creed.  Every  friend  of  religious  freedom  has  a  deep  interest 
in  this  subject.  The  question  is.  Shall  religion  be  kept  entirely  free 
from  the  dictation  of  the  civil  authorities,  or  shall  the  funds  of  the 
State,  contributed  in  common,  be  used  for  the  support  of  public  in- 


ALL   CITIZENS   HERE   CONCERNED.  S8 

stitutions,  in  which,  by  law,  the  Protestant  translation  shall  be  used  ? 
And,  in  the  wise  solution  of  such  a  question  in  this  country,  Pro- 
testants have  more  at  stake  than  Catholics.  And  hence  it  is  just 
here,  just  at  the  very  beginning,  that  I  would  have  this  great  ques- 
tion thoroughly  understood  and  fairly  settled.  I  would  fight  the 
allies  landing,  and  as  they  come  from  their  ships,  and  not  wait  to  make 
murderous  sorties  upon  them  after  they  are  entrenched  in  their  deadly 
rifle-pits.  I  do  not  consider  it  as  a  mere  controversy  between  Pro- 
testants and  Roman  Catholics.  If  I  did,  I  should  not,  at  present, 
have  anything  to  do  with  it.  Nor  do  I  mean,  in  this  Tractate,  to 
enter  at  all  upon  controversies  between  different  churches.  I  do  not 
think  that  such  matters  belong  to  this  subject,  if  we  look  at  it,  as  I 
wish  to  do,  in  the  light  of  (xod's  Word  and  of  our  fundamental  laws. 
Besides,  as  far  as  I  understand  the  views  of  the  Roman  Catholics,  my 
principles,  in  regard  to  State  education,  are  altogether  unsatisfactory 
to  them.  Their  theory  is,  that  education,  the  whole  work  of  educa^ 
tion,  belongs  to  the  Church,  and  must  be  essentially  connected  with 
religion,  from  beginning  to  end.  They  claim  "a  divine  right  to  con- 
trol the  education  of  their  baptized  children,  and  do  not  allow  the 
State  to  have  anything  to  do  with  it,  except  to  furnish  means.  How 
far  this  theory  can  be  benefitted  by  the  adopting  of  my  views,  I  leave 
ihd  candid  reader  to  say. 

I  would  respectfully  answer  again :  Suppose  it  is  true,  that  my 
principles  are  "favorable  to  the  Catholics,"  and  that  I  "concede  to 
the  Romanist  just  what  he  asks,"  has  that  anything  to  do  with 
the  merits  of  this  question  ?  I  do  not  suppose  that  Protestants  or 
Catholics  are  to  be  regarded  as  the  standard  of  truth  in  this  discus- 
sion. The  proper  question  to  ask  is  not  whom  do  these  principles 
favor,  nor  is  it  conceding  what  any  one  asks  to  advocate  them.  No ; 
the  true  question  to  ask  is,  what  is  truth  ?  And  then  we  should 
wait  calmly  for  the  answer,  and  not  go  out  to  the  mob  to  hear  what 
their  prejudices  wish.  The  true  question  is  :  are  my  principles  true 
— are  they  right  before  God,  and  in  the  light  of  the  Constitution  and 
laws  ?  If  they  are,  and  are  favorable  to  the  Roman  Catholics,  then 
it  is  because  they  are  right.  And  if  they  concede  what  the  J  esuits 
are  asking,  then  it  is  because  they  have  reason  and  justice  on  their 
side ',  and  not  because  they  are  Catholics  or  Jesuits.  For  myself,  I 
am  not  afraid  to  follow  truth.  The  prayer  of  my  life  is,  and  has  been, 
to  see  the  true  light,  and  to  have  grace  and  courage  to  follow  it 
whithersoever  it  leads.  And  here,  also,  I  protest  against  the  charges 
80  often  and  so  repeatedly  brought  against  Roman  Catholics  in  this 
controversy,  that  they  are  anti-christian,  avowedly  infidel,  and  enemies 
to  God's  Holy  Word,  and  that  their  sole  object  is  to  dishonor  it.  All 
such  extravagant  denunciations  and  ugly  epithets  as  disfigure  the 
speeches  and  writers  who  have  taken  a  prominent  part  in  this  contro- 
versy, in  New  York  and  elsewhere,  are  wholly  foreign  to  the  dignity 
and  magnitude  of  the  subject,  as  well  as  injurious  to  the  views  they 
advocate.  Whether  Catholics  have  bound  the  nations  of  Europe  in 
6 


84  THE   BIBLE   AND    POLITICS. 

"the  chains  of  civil  and  spiritual  despotism;"  whether  they  have 
*'  burnt  Protestant  Bibles,"  and  "  persecuted  heretics  to  death"  is 
not  the  question.  Neither  is  it  ad  rem  to  consider  whether  Protest- 
ants have  persecuted  one  another,  burned  witches,  and  banished  Bap- 
tists and  Quakers  in  other  lands  or  in  other  days.  Nor  is  it  here  the 
question  to  decide  who  are  the  friends  of  liberty,  or  who  are  the  des- 
pisers  of  the  Word  of  God.  But  Roman  Catholics  cannot  be  fairly 
charged  with  being  enemies  to  the  Word  of  God  as  such.  They  are 
opposed  to  our  translation.  They  are  opposed  to  many  of  our  opinions 
and  usages ;  but  it  is  not  true  that  they  are  infidels  or  enemies  of 
Christ.  Nor  do  I  see  that  we  have  any  right  to  assume  here  that 
their  translation  is  not  as  faithful  to  the  original  as  ours.  I  am  not 
now  saying  that  such  is  the  fact ;  but  I  am  saying  that  our  Govern- 
ment has  never  in  any  way  decided  which  is  the  true  translation,  nor 
which  is  the  true  religion.  To  say  then  that  our  Bible  is  the  Word 
of  God,  and  must  therefore  be  put  into  our  public  institutions  by  the 
civil  authorities,  is  to  beg  the  whole  question  involved. 

And  I  humbly  beg  that  my  friends  will  consider  whether  this 
whole  popular  style  of  abusing  the  Catholics  and  those  who  are  not 
able  to  adopt  their  particular  views  about  the  Bible  in  Public  Schools, 
is  not  altogether  a  mistake?  Is  it  not  in  itself  wrong,  and  does  it  not 
produce  evil  results  ?  It  seems  to  me  unfair,  untrue,  and  cruel,  to 
call  them  enemies  of  the  Public  Schools,  and  of  civil  liberty  and  of 
the  Bible,  because  they  do  not  think  it  right  to  force  the  English 
translation  into  the  schools.  The  popular  classification  and  stereo- 
typed harangues  on  this  subject  are  not  true.  Some  of  the  pro- 
foundest  thinkers,  and  of  the  best  scholars  and  artists,  have  been 
Roman  Catholics.  The  enlightenment  of  the  nineteenth  century  has 
not  inured  wholly  to  the  advancement  of  our  Protestant  faith.  And, 
besides,  not  a  few  of  the  ablest  legal  men  and  scholars  of  our  day,  who 
are  the  staunchest  Protestants,  do  not  believe  it  constitutional  or 
scriptural  to  compel  the  use  of  the  Bible  in  the  Public  Schools.  Are 
they  "  avowedly  anti-christian  ?"  Is  their  sole  object  "  the  dis- 
honoring of  the  Word  of  God  ?  "  I  may  be  wrong,  but  I  think  I  am 
not.  I  am  at  least  so  confident  in  the  beauty  and  strength  of  truth 
that  I  do  not  think  it  can  be  advanced  by  doing  injustice  to  an  oppo- 
nent. I  would  not  paint  His  Satanic  Majesty  blacker  than  he  is, 
nor  add  anything  to  the  ugliness  of  his  horns  and  claws.  Let  full 
justice  be  done  to  all.  I  am  not  here  then  discussing  the  comparative 
merits  of  religions  nor  of  translations.  I  am  only  trying  to  state  the 
point  at  issue  fairly.  And  I  ask  any  thoughtful  man  if  it  is  just  to 
say  that  the  Catholics  are  enemies  of  God's  Holy  Word,  and  to  de- 
nounce those  as  Infidels  and  Atheists  who  sympathize  with  them  in 
their  objections  to  the  compulsory  use  of  the  Protestant  Version  by 
law  in  our  Public  Schools  ?  Let  it  be  remembered,  in  answering  this 
question,  that  it  is  not  because  they  do  not  believe  the  Holy  Scriptures 
to  be  the  inspired  Word  of  God,  that  Catholics  object  to  the  Protestant 
translation  being  used  in  the  schools;    but  because  they  say,  and 


f>P  THB 

^NIVERSITT 


HARD   NAMES   NOT  ARGUMENTS.  S5 

their  Church  tells  them  to  believe,  that  our  translation  is  not  a  com- 
plete copy  of  the  Word  of  God — that  it  has  been  altered  and  changed — 
and  does  not  give  the  whole  Divine  Word  as  given  by  the  Inspiration 
of  the  Holy  Ghost.  It  is  not  .then  to  the  Word  of  God  as  such,  but 
to  a  particular  version  of  it  that  they  object — they  object  also  to  the 
teaching  of  the  Word  of  God  except  ])y  direction  of  the  Church. 
Now  if  Protestants  may  call  Catholics  enemies  of  the  Word  of  God, 
and  class  them  with  Infidels  and  Atheists,  because  they  do  not  believe 
in  our  translation,  then  why  may  not  Roman  Catholics  return  the 
compliment  and  call  us  heretics  and  enemies  of  Christ  because  we  do 
not  Delieve  in  theirs  ?  And  if  the  voice  of  antiquity  or  of  the  ma- 
jority, which  is  a  favorite  and  convenient  argument  with  the  cham- 
pions of  this  controversy,  is  appealed  to,  where  will  the  verdict  lie  ? 
Let  us  then  have  no  more  hard  names,  nor  denunciation  of  those  who 
are  not  able  to  see  as  we  see,  as  enemies  of  morality  and  religion,  and  of 
God's  Holy  Word,  when  in  the  sight  of  Him  who  knoweth  the  heart, 
they  may  be  guileless  as  Nathaniel,  and  panting  after  the  fervency  of 
David  and  Paul.  If  men's  hearts  were  in  crystal  shrines  we  should 
find  there  are  many  more  good  people  and  great  men  in  the  world 
than  we  suppose.  Bad  as  the  world  is,  there  are  a  great  many  more 
pious  people  in  it  than  is  generally  believed — there  are  very  many 
we  would  dearly  love  if  we  only  knew  them.  I  should  be  extremely 
grieved  to  think  that  my  Church  had  the  only  patent  road  to  heaven. 
I  am  very  sure,  if  by  the  Grace  of  God,  I  ever  get  there,  I  shall  meet 
many  there  from  other  churches,  and  fear  I  shall  miss  some  from  my 
own — for  their  want  of  love  to  God  and  man. 


Religious  Liberty  in  the  light  of  the   Constitution  and  Laws  of  the 
United  States. 

"  Magistracy  is  God's  blessed  ordinance  in  its  right  place ;  but  let  us 
not  be  wiser  than  God  to  devise  him  a  means  for  the  publishing  of 
his  Gospel,  which  he  that  had  all  power  had  not,  nor  hath  com- 
manded. Magistracy  is  a  power  of  this  world  :  the  kingdom,  power, 
subjects  and  means  of  publishing  the  Gospel  are  not  of  this  world. 
His  Kingdom  is  spiritual,  his  laws  spiritual,  the  transgression  spir- 
itual, the  punishment  spiritual,  the  everlasting  death  of  the  soul,  his 
sword  spiritual.  No  carnal  or  worldly  weapon  is  given  for 
THE  SUPPORTATION  OF  HIS  KINGDOM.  Earthly  authority  belong- 
eth  to  earthly  Kings  ;  but  spiritual  authority  belongeth  to  that  one 
spiritual  King  who  is  King  of  Kings.''  The  power  and  authority 
of  the  civil  magistrate  are  from  God ;  "jet  him  require  what  he  will, 
I  must  of  conscience  obey  him,  with  my  body,  goods,  and  all  that  I 
have.     But  my  soul,  wherewith  I  am  to  worship  God,  that  belongeth 


96  THE   BIBLE   AND    POLITICS. 

to  ANOTHER  KiNG,  whose  Kingdom  is  not  of  this  world;  whose 
people  must  come  willingly ;  whose  weapons  are  not  carnal,  but  spir- 
itual." These  noble  extracts  are  more  precious  than  all  the  nuggeta 
of  our  mountains.  They  are  taken  from  the  answer  made  by  the 
Baptists,  to  the  animadversions  made  upon  their  faith  by  Mr.  John 
Kobinson,  the  Puritan.  This  quotation,  as  above,  is  from  "  Hanserd 
Knolley's  society's  edition  of  Early  English  and  other  Baptist  wri- 
ters" as  quoted  in  UnderhilFs  '^  struggles  and  triumphs  of  Religious 
Liberty." 

We  are  Christian  peoples,  and  yet  the  United  States  has  no  reli- 
gion. The  great  principle  of  x\merican  Institutions  is  not  religious 
toleration  but  absolute  religious  liberty.  As  we  have  no  religious 
establishment,  the  word  toleration  does  not  belong  to  our  dictionary. 
We  have  no  power  to  grant  toleration.  Toleration  is  not  liberty. 
But  we  have  full  and  perfect  religious  freedom.  This  is  the  great 
principle  of  American  liberty.  The  incompetency  of  the  State  in 
matters  of  religion,  and  the  perfect  freedom  and  independence  of  the 
Church,  are  the  fundamental  principles  of  our  fathers,  which  were 
incorporated  into  the  institutions  of  our  country. 

First.  Though  happily  for  us  the  practice  of  allowing  full  religious 
liberty  has  been  more  fully  carried  out  in  this  country  than  in  any 
other,  still  there  is,  it  seems  to  me,  a  great  want  of  definite  ideas  on 
the  subject  amongst  us,  and  but  little  clearness  or  grasp  of  mind  dis- 
played by  those  who  have  written  upon  it.  The  true  relations  of  the 
cKurch  of  Christ  to  the  State  and  to  the  supremacy  of  the  laws  of  the 
land,  are  not  well  understood.  The  whole  subject  of  Church  and 
State,  and  of  the  relations  of  Christianity  to  the  laws  of  the  land,  will 
have  to  be  reconsidered,  and  expounded  anew,  and  from  the  stand- 
point of  the  Gospel  as  it  is  in  the  nineteenth  century.  The  union  of 
the  Church  and  State,  as  it  exists  in  Europe,  still  casts  its  huge  de- 
formed shadow  over  us.  We  are  not  yet  completely  emancipated 
from  its  thraldom.  In  Egypt,  and  in  all  ancient  pagan  nations,  reli- 
gion and  politics  were  one.  Consequently,  there  were  as  many  reli- 
gions, as  there  were  gods  and  goddesses,  and  politics  accordingly. 
And  each  nation  supposed  its  gods  to  go  with  them  to  war,  or  to  sit 
with  them  in  council.  A  victory,  therefore,  was  not  merely  a  victory 
over  their  mortal  enemies,  but  over  the  gods  of  their  adversary,  also. 
Homer,  and  the  Bible,  and  all  ancient  legends  furnish  us  with  numerous 
illustrations  of  this.  It  was  by  making  one  and  the  same  idol  the 
god  of  two  great  rival  cities,  that  Mencheres  forged  a  bond  of  in- 
ternal union,  and  prevented  the  threatened  speedy  dissolution  of  the 
Egyptian  monarchy.  (See  Osburn,  vol.  1,  347.)  In  fact  we  have 
borrowed  so  much  from  the  ancient  Roman  world,  and  are  so  closely 
allied  to  Europe  where  the  Church  and  the  State  are  still  united,  that 
it  seems  almost  impossible  for  us  to  emancipate  ourselves  into  the  full 
light  of  the  glorious  liberty  actually  secured  to  us  by  our  government 
and  by  the  Gospel.  Among  the  patriarchs  the  father  was  the  chief 
and  high  priest  of  his  household  and  tribe.     Aaron  was  spokesman 


CiESAR   IN  THE   CHURCH    DIES   HARD.  87 

for  Moses.  And  during  the  theocracy  of  the  Jews  their  judges  and 
prophets  were  identical.  And  after  the  commonwealth  became  a 
monarchy,  the  king  was  overawed  by  the  priest.  And  among  the 
Pagans  the  civil  power  and  the  spiritual  power  were  united  in  the 
same  person.  Caesar  was  both  Imjxrator  and  Maximus  Pontifex, 
That  is,  he  was  the  head  of  the  State  and  the  head  of  the  religious 
establishment — both  supreme  civil  ruler  and  supreme  Pontiff,  as  the 
Pope  is  still  in  the  States  of  the  Church,  and  as  the  Sovereign  of 
Great  Britain  is  in  the  British  Empire.  Caesar  has  always  struggled 
to  hold  supreme  power  over  the  souls  of  men  as  well  as  over  their 
bodies  and  estates.  It  has  taken  scores  of  martyrs  and  centuries  of 
toil  and  suffering  to  establish  the  great  truth  that  the  conscience  is, 
and  of  right  must  be,  free  and  accountable  to  God  alone.  It  was  to 
get  rid  of  this  tyranny  of  the  State  over  the  conscience,  that  a  ma- 
jority of  our  ancestors  came  to  America.  They  left  their  country, 
and  their  kindred,  and  "  the  green  graves  of  their  sires,"  as  Abraham 
did,  and  fled  to  this  then  wilderness  continent,  *'  for  freedom  to 
worship  God."  And  in  organizing  the  Federal  government  after 
the  war  of  Independence,  the  principle  of  perfect  religious  freedom 
was  fully  recognized.  The  same  recognition  is  made,  I  believe,  in 
all  the  State  Governments,  except  that  of  New  Hampshire.  The 
Government  of  New  Hampshire  is,  or  was  until  very  recently,  offi- 
cially Protestant.  Koman  Catholics  were  only  tolerated.  Perhaps 
similar  disabilities  lie  on  Israelites  in  North  Carolina. 

Secondly.  It  were  a  mistake,  however,  to  suppose  as  most  Europeans 
have  done,  that  because  the  government  of  the  United  States  recog- 
nizes religious  liberty,  that  therefore  it  is  hostile  to  religion,  and  is 
really  atheistic.  "  The  American  state  is  not  an  infidel  or  a  godless 
state,  nor  is  it  indifferent  to  religion.  It  does  not  indeed,  as  the  state 
profess  any  particular  form  of  Christianity,  but  it  recognizes  the  im- 
portance and  necessity  of  religion,  and  its  obligations  to  respect  and 
protect  the  religion  of  its  citizens." 

As  Mr.  Jay  was  wont  to  say :  ^'  that  in  this  country  there  were 
many  sovereigns  and  no  subjects,"  so  we  say  in  this  country,  there 
are  many  religions,  and  yet  there  is  no  religion.  There  is  really  much 
vital  piety,  but  no  establishment.  The  United  States  is  like  one  of 
the  Apocalyptic  powers  in  regard  to  religion.  It  is,  and  it  is  not, 
and  yet  it  is  a  highly  religious  nation.  On  the  point  of  Christian 
Nationality,  the  following  remarks  from  the  London  Christian 
Times  are  exceedingly  pertinent,  and  in  the  main  as  just  as  they  are 
important,  "  The  parallel  is  perfect  in  all  that  concerns  the  lower 
hemisphere  of  Anglo-Saxon  life  and  politics ;  in  the  upper,  while  in 
some  respects  the  advantage  is  clearly  with  the  old  country,  in  others 
the  Americans  are  as  clearly  in  the  van.  In  all  that  concerns  the 
relations  between  religion  and  the  public  life  of  a  community,  there 
is  a  freedom,  a  simplicity,  and  a  reality  in  the  American  way  of  deal- 
ing with  the  matter,  to  which,  with  all  ponderous  establishments  and 
ages  of  experience,  we  have  not  yet  attained.     Indeed,  the  Americans 


38-  THE   BIBLE   AND   POLITICS. 

manage,  without  a  State  Establishment,  to  infuse,  to  a  large  extent, 
the  Christian  element  into  their  public  acts ;  and  on  the  other  hand, 
are  not  afraid,  Democrats  as  they  are,  of  seeking  to  give  formal  ex- 
pression to  the  convictions  and  emotions  of  the  national  religious 
heart.  There  is  an  amount  of  good  sense  and  right  feeling  abroad  in 
America  upon  these  matters  which  reads  some  useful  lessons  to  the 
religionists  of  the  old  world.  It  has  been  held  by  many  earnest  and 
able  men,  that  a  State  Establishment  of  religion  is  the  condition 
under  which  alone  a  nation  can  be  Christian.  Now  no  one  can  study 
the  Constitution  of  the  various  states  of  great  Transatlantic  Republic 
without  feeling  that  Christianity  was  very  deeply  in  the  hearts  and 
minds  of  the  men  who  framed  them,  though  in  almost  every  instance 
the  Constitution  provides  expressly  against  any  formal  relations  be- 
tween Christianity  and  the  civil  power.  And  the  history  of  the 
growth  of  Christianity,  and  of  its  living  influence  on  the  various  po- 
litical communities  of  the  Union,  amply  proves  that  formal  established 
relations  between  the  Church  and  State  are  not  essential  to  the 
maintenance  of  national  Christian  character,  nor  to  the  expression  of 
national  religious  convictions  at  suitable  times  and  in  suitable  ways." 

Thirdly.  The  great  fundamental  principle  of  American  institutions 
in  regard  to  religion  is  this,  namely :  to  protect  the  claims  of  every 
citizen  in  the  free  exercise  and  enjoyment  of  his  religious  faith  and 
worship,  as  far  as  is  compatible  with  the  same  and  perfectly  equal 
claims  of  other  citizens.  No  other  principle  can  be  recognized  among 
us,  for  all  citizens  are  equal  in  the  eye  of  the  State ;  and,  according 
to  our  government,  all  citizens  are  possessed  of  '' inalienable  rights," 
which  are  not  held  as  grants  from  civil  society,  but  from  the  Creator. 

These  rights  are  generally,  if  not  always  prefixed  to  the  Constitu- 
tion of  the  State,  in  what  is  called  a  "Bill  of  Rights."  And  these 
Rights  are  to  be  protected  as  well  and  as  much  as  the  Constitution 
itself.  They  are  in  fact  more  sacred  than  the  Constitution.  Now, 
among  these  inalienable  rights,  Americans  recognize  the  freedom  of 
the  conscience,  the  right  of  every  citizen  to  choose  his  own  religion, 
and  worship  God  as  his  conscience  dictates,  provided  he  does  not  do 
any  thing  on  the  plea  of  conscience,  contra  bonos  mores,  and  pro- 
vided his  worship  is  not  a  public  nuisance  and  does  not  interfere  with 
the  same  rights  in  other  persons.  The  State  is  therefore  bound,  not 
to  teach  me  what  religion  is,  not  to  tell  me  what  I  am  to  believe,  and 
turn  me  over  to  the  executioner  to  be  burned  as  a  heretic,  or  crucified 
as  a  malefactor  if  I  do  not  believe  and  practice  as  the  State  directs. 
No  !  this  were  tyranny,  this  were  persecution,  this  were  a  violation  of 
every  right  sacred  to  me  as  an  American  citizen.  But  the  State  is 
bound  to  protect  me  in  the  full  freedom  of  believing  any  creed  I 
choose,  and  of  worshipping  Grod  according  to  my  conscience.  This 
is  an  element  of  my  liberty  as  a  citizen,  that  I  am  to  have  full  free- 
dom and  protection  in  all  my  rights  and  privileges.  There  is  no  dif- 
ference in  the  State  between  Romanist,  Greek,  Jew  or  Protestant, 
Mormon   or   Hindoo,  if  they   are   citizens  of  the   United   States. 


PERFECT   RELIGIOUS   EQUALITY.  "  39 

Every  citizen  has  the  same  and  equal  rights  as  to  his  religion,  and 
has  the  same  claim  for  protection  from  the  government.  As  a  Pro- 
testant, I  have  no  demands  on  the  government ;  nor  should  I  have 
any  claims  on  the  government  as  a  Roman  Catholic,  a  Mormon  or  a 
Buhdist,  as  a  Greek  or  Jew ;  hut  as  a  citizen,  I  have  a  claim  upon 
the  government  for  perfect  equality  in  regard  to  my  religion, 
whatever  it  may  be,  that  any  other  citizen  may  have  in  regard  to 
his  religion,  whatever  it  may  be.  If,  therefore,  as  a  Protestant,  I 
ask  the  State  to  pay  the  salary  of  my  pastor,  or  to  endow  a  school  in 
which  my  tenets  of  belief,  or  the  dogmas  of  my  Church  shall  be 
taught,  it  cannot  be  done,  for  so  doing  would  be  a  favor  to  my  reli- 
gion, nor  can  such  equal  and  even  favors  be  granted  by  the  State  to 
all  the  religions  within  it,  for  that  would  be  virtually  passing  laws  for 
their  establishment,  which  is  contrary  to  our  laws.  As  long  as  a 
citizen  keeps  within  the  limits  of  equality,  in  asking  the  protection 
of  the  State  in  the  enjoyment  of  his  religion,  and  does  nothing  con- 
tra honos  7nores,  and  commits  no  trespass  nor  public  nuisance,  he 
cannot  be  molested  in  his  worship.  The  Constitution  has  per  se  no 
religion,  but  the  State  is  bound  to  protect  the  religion  of  every  citizen. 
The  religion  of  the  citizen  is  equally  the  religion  of  the  American 
State,  in  so  far  as  the  religion  of  one  citizen  does  not  interfere  with 
nor  exclude  that  of  another. 

Fourthli/.  I  stop  not  here  to  adopt  or  reject  the  position  of  Judge 
Story  and  of  Mr.  Webster,  that  Christianity  is  a  part  of  the  law  of 
the  land.  It  is  obvious  there  is  a  sense  in  which  we  are  a  Christian 
nation,  though  our  government  has  no  religion.  The  sea  is  salty 
because  its  particles  are  saltish.  We  are  a  Christian  country  simply 
and  only  because  a  majority  of  the  inhabitants  are  nominal  Christians, 
and  not  because  of  our  organic  laws.  The  following  points  are  quite 
clear.  The  late  census  shows,  in  regard  to  the  numerical  strength  of 
the  nation,  that  the  United  States  is  a  Christian  nation,  and  its 
Christianity  is  Protestant.  In  a  population  estimated  at  twenty-six 
and  a  half  millions,  we  have  sixteen  and  a  half  millions  in  connection 
with  what  are  considered  Evangelical  Protestant  Churches. 

A  second  fact  brought  out  by  the  census,  and  alluded  to  by  the 
London  paper  just  quoted,  is  the  success  of  the  voluntary  principle 
in  contradistinction  to  State  endowments  in  provisions  for  the  reli- 
gious wants  of  the  nation.  It  appears  that,  in  the  United  States, 
there  are  church  buildings  sufl&cient  to  accommodate  thirteen  millions 
and  a  half  of  the  population,  and  that  there  is  an  evangelical  ministry 
of  twenty  thousand  men,  and  a  church  membership,  in  full  commu- 
nion, of  above  four  millions, — nearly  one  in  four  of  all  the  adult 
population ;  and  about  seventy  millions  invested  in  church  property  by 
the  voluntary  gifts  of  the  people. 

Thirdly.  Then,  in  view  of  these  facts,  which  might  be  greatly 
amplified  in  detail,  we  venture  to  say,  that  while  we  are  a  Christian 
nation,  it  is  not  true  that  the  end  of  our  government  is  to  teach  reli- 
gion or  the  preservation  or  propagation  of  Christianity.     The  State' 


€|9  THE    BIBLE   AND    POLITICS. 

is  not  established  to  propagate  religion.  The  primary  ends  of  the 
government  are  'Hhe  protection  of  the  persons  and  property  of  men, 
irrespective  of  their  religious  opinions."  The  religion  of  this  country 
then  is  Christian  and  Protestant,  not  because  Protestant  Christianity 
is  established  by  law,  but  simply  because  such  are  the  principles  and 
sentiments  of  the  vast  majority  of  the  people  composing  and  creating 
the  State.  But  their  majority  gives  them  no  right,  civil  or  moral,  to 
interfere  with  the  consciences  of  their  fellow  citizens,  who  may  be  in 
a  minority  as  to  their  views  on  religion — certainly  not.  There  is  no 
point  clearer  in  the  history  of  our  Constitution  and  of  our  laws,  than 
that  our  government  means  to  recognize  equality  of  rights  and  privi- 
leges in  all  its  citizens,  as  the  only  equality  consistent  with  truth  and 
liberty,  without  any  regard  to  majorities  or  minorities  on  religious 
dogmas. 

Fourthly.  In  view  of  these  facts,  there  is  no  moral  responsibility 
resting  on  the  State  as  such,  to  hold  or  to  teach  any  religion. 

Men  as  individuals,  are  to  give  an  account,  each  one  for  himself, 
to  Grod ;  but  as  banks,  corporations,  legislatures  and  states,  they  are 
in  fact,  without  a  conscience.  Social  wrong  doing  is  to  be  punished 
in  this  world,  for  social  functions  are  at  death  resolved  back  into  in- 
dividual accountability.  Men  do  not  die  in  their  municipal  capacity. 
They  do  not  appear  before  the  awful  Judge  of  quick  and  dead  as 
corporate  or  civil  communities.  Every  man  has  to  die  and  be  judged 
for  himself.  His  moral  responsibility  for  acts  as  a  member  of  the 
Chamber  of  Commerce,  or  of  the  City  Council,  or  of  the  Legislature, 
rests  on  him  as  an  individual. 

Fifthly.  The  fact  that  the  powers  that  be  are  ordained  of  God, 
does  not  prove  that  a  State  as  such  is  religious.  The  power  to  get 
wealth  is  also  of  God,  but  riches  are  not  piety.  God  put  bits  into 
Nebuchadnezzar's  nostrils,  and  made  him  his  hammer  to  execute  his 
wrath  upon  Egypt  and  the  Syrians;  but  it  does  not  follow,  that 
therefore  the  King  of  Babylon  was  as  godly  as  Daniel.  Cyrus  was 
a  divinely  appointed  agent  to  deliver  God's  people,  as  Moses  had 
been  before ;  yet  it  does  not  follow  on  that  account,  that  Cyrus  was 
as  pious  a  man  as  Moses.  The  murderers  of  our  Lord  fulfilled  a 
Divine  purpose,  but  they  did  not  crucify  Him  out  of  regard  to  the 
will  of  God,  but  with  wicked  hands  gratified  the  malice  of  their  own 
evil  hearts.  The  laws  of  the  land  then  may  be  ordinances  of  God, 
and  yet  not  be  in  themselves  religious,  no  more  than  the  laws  of  agricul- 
ture are  religious.  The  Creator  of  man  and  the  Founder  of  the 
Church  have  not  delegated  power  to  the  State  to  make  a  church,  or 
to  teach  as  a  State  the  doctrines  of  Christianity.  If  I  have  not 
wholly  misinterpreted  the  history  of  the  Church  of  Christ  in  its  early 
ages,  such  was  the  tenor  of  all  its  teachings  as  to  the  functions  res- 
pectively of  the  State  and  of  the  Church. 

Sixthly.  There  is  no  power  granted  to  the  Christian  Church  to  es- 
tablish a  State  for  the  purpose  of  teaching  men  the  true  religion  by  the 
power  of  the  sword.     All  the  right  then  we  have  as  Christians  to  ask 


GOVERNMENT   NOT   RELIGIOUS.  41 

for  laws  recognizing  the  Lord's  Day  and  prohibiting  blasphemy,  is 
contained  in  the  acknowledgment  of  the  people  that  such  things  are 
contrary  to  good  morality,  and  are  a  hindrance  to  the  exercise  of  the 
religious  freedom  guaranteed  to  all  men  by  the  Creator  and  by  the 
Constitution.  It  is  contrary  to  the  true  independence  of  the  Church 
of  Grod,  and  to  the  genius  of  American  institutions,  for  any  of  our 
laws  to  go  beyond  the  simple  protection  of  the  citizen  in  the  perfect 
enjoyment  of  religious  freedom.  It  is  not  the  province  of  the  State 
to  make  religion  or  to  teach  it — to  make  a  Bible  or  to  compel  us  to 
read  it — to  ordain  a  Sabbath  or  force  me  to  keep  it.  All  the  State 
has  a  right  to  do,  is  to  protect  all  its  citizens  in  the  full  possession  of 
their  rights  to  worship  Grod  after  the  dictates  of  their  own  consciences. 
Our  Legislatures  and  School  Directors  are  not  ecclesiastical  courts. 
Our  Federal  or  State  government  as  such  has  no  functions  to  perform 
in  behalf  of  religion,  further  than  to  maintain  absolute  religious 
freedom.  The  government  has  no  right  to  educate  ministers  or 
priests,  or  to  send  out  teachers  of  religion  to  the  heathen,  nor  to  ap- 
point chaplains  to  the  army,  nor  to  the  navy,  nor  to  our  State  prisons. 
If  Congress  or  the  Legislature  wish  a  chaplain,  one  may  be  elected ; 
but  he  should  be  paid  out  of  their  own  salaries,  and  not  from  the 
public  moneys.  Members  of  our  legislative  bodies  have  no  right  to 
appropriate  money  for  the  services  of  a  chaplain.  If  they  have  one, 
he  should  be  regarded  by  them  as  a  personal  necessity  or  conveni- 
ence— just  as  their  own  coat — and  should  be  paid  for  as  such. 
The  State  does  not  undertake  to  make  our  Legislators  pious,  nor  to 
teach  them  the  catechism  which  their  mothers  should  have  taught 
them  at  home. 

I  regard  Christianity  as  the  basis  of  our  distinctive  institutions,  and 
the  Bible  as  the  only  palladium  of  American  liberty.  But  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  United  States  positively  and  expressly  forbids  Con- 
gress to  make  any  laws  establishing  any  religion,  and  secures  to  all 
men  perfect  freedom  to  worship  Grod  as  they  choose.  It  is  there  im- 
plied they  may  worship  as  many  gods  as  they  please,  and  worship 
anything  as  God  they  may  choose,  or  worship  no  god  at  all.  The 
articles  of  the  Constitution  are  these : 

"  No  religious  test  shall  ever  be  required  as  a  qualification  to  any 
office  or  public  trust  under  the  United  States.''     Art.  vi,  page   22. 

"  Congress  shall  make  no  law  respecting  an  establishment  of  re- 
ligion, or  prohibiting  the  free  exercise  thereof."  Art,  I,  amend- 
ment. 

Seventhly.  I  do  not  find,  then,  in  the  Constitution  or  Laws  of 
the  United  States,  nor  in  the  Word  of  God,  any  right  or  power  con- 
veyed to  us  as  Christians  or  as  men  to  persecute  a  fellow-man,  or  to 
subject  him  to  any  civil  disability,  or  to  impose  upon  him  any  tem- 
poral pains  0^  penalties  for  his  want  of  a  religion,  or  on  account  of 
the  kind  of  religion  he  professes,  nor  on  account  of  the  manner  of 
his  worshiping  the  Supreme  Being,  provided,  he  does  not  invade  the 
rights  of  his  neighbor,  or  commit  an  offense  against  good  morals.  I 
6 


42-  THE   BIBLE   AND    POLITICS. 

do  not  find  any  authority  in  Christianity  to  turn  a  meeting  house  into 
a  stable,  to  pull  down  a  convent,  to  burn  a  monastery,  nor  to  blow 
up  a  heathen  temple.  I  do  not  believe  Christianity  allows  us  to  visit 
the  offender  against  the  sanctity  of  the  Sabbath  with  any  pains  or 
penalties.  Nor  do  I  find  any  authority  in  the  Legislature  to  pro- 
hibit idolatry,  or  any  other  form  of  false  religion.  If  the  worship  of 
idols,  or  any  other  system  of  faith  contains  anything  in  its  pi-actice 
that  is  an  offense  to  the  laws  of  the  land,  then  the  government  may 
clearly  take  cognizance  of  it.  If,  under  the  pretext  of  worshiping 
God,  a  company  of  howling  Dervishes  should  come  from  Constanti- 
nople and  set  up  their  worship  in  our  streets,  they  could  be  re- 
strained, not  for  their  religion,  but  on  the  gound  that  they  were  a 
nuisance.  If  the  dancing  girls  of  Esneh  in  Egypt,  were  to  transport 
themselves  to  Stockton  street,  they  could  be  arrested  and  restrained 
from  their  abominable  practices — not  because  they  are  Mohammed- 
ans, but  because  their  conduct  is  an  offense  to  good  manners,  and  an 
outrage  to  common  decency.  And  just  so  far  as  Mormons  and 
Hindoos,  or  Buhdists,  and  the  people  of  the  Cannibal  Islands,  may, 
on  the  plea  of  conscience,  be  guilty  of  crimes  and  misdemeanors  and 
offences  in  the  sight  of  the  law,  so  far  may  the  magistrate  restrain 
them ;  but  not  for  their  religion,  or  their  want  of  religion,  but  be- 
cause they  are  offenders  against  the  laws  of  the  land.  If  they  should 
make  their  temple  a  house  of  prostitution,  or  of  human  sacrifices,  or 
should  steal  our  children  to  bring  them  up  Pagans,  then  the  laws  of 
the  land  would  take  hold  of  their  offenses,  and  protect  us  in  our 
rights.  If  we  have  laws  forbidding  theft,  bigamy,  or  adultery,  then 
such  things  cannot  be  allowed  on  the  plea  that  they  are  part  of  one's 
religion.  But  if  a  number  of  men  chose  to  buy  ten  leagues  of  land 
in  Sacramento  Valley,  and  build  a  temple  as  high  as  that  of  Babylon, 
and  put  a  golden  image  on  the  top  of  it,  and  go  out  and  worship  it 
every  day, — so  long  as  they  violate  none  of  the  laws  of  the  land,  they 
must  be  protected  in  their  worship.  In  this  connection,  it  may  be 
well  to  observe,  that  the  loud  complaints  of  English  Christians 
against  the  government  in  India  and  other  heathen  countries,  is  not 
so  much  because  the  government  tolerates  heathen  worship,  but  be- 
cause it  patronizes  it.  The  revenues  were  employed  in  supporting 
heathen  temples.  And  monstrous  as  this  seems  to  be  to  the  pious  peo- 
ple of  Great  Britain,  the  government  was,  in  a  manner,  justified. 
Consistency  seemed  to  require  it.  The  difficulty  in  their  case  lies  in 
the  establishment  of  any  religion — the  union  of  the  Church  and 
State.  In  England  and  Ireland  Episcopacy  is  the  established  church. 
In  Scotland,  the  Presbyterian  church  is  the  state  church.  It  is  on 
this  plea  of  justice  and  consistency  the  government  appropriates  mo- 
ney to  Boman  Catholic  schools  and  Pagan  temples,  as  well  as  to  the 
schools  and  congregations  of  the  established  churches.  For  Roman 
Catholics  and  Hindoos  pay  taxes.  They  are  all  subjects.  And  in 
this  perplexity  of  the  English  we  shall  involve  ourselves,  if  unfortu- 
nately we  ever  begin  to  divide  our  school  fund.     Every  sect  would 


AVOID    RELIGIOUS   FEUDS.  48 

of  course  demand  its  share  of  the  public  money.  The  hope  of  a 
large  appropriation  would  lead  to  proselytings  that  would  be  endless. 
The  kind  offices  of  good  neighborhood  would  cease.  The  gloomy 
walls  of  bigotry  would  be  raised  between  families  that  now  mingle 
sweetly  in  social  intercourse,  and  whose  children  though  taught  a 
different  catechism  at  home,  grow  up  in  all  the  warmth  and  perma- 
nency of  school-day  friendshp.  And  the  result  would  be  the  entire 
destruction  of  the  great  American  Public  School  system.  In  order, 
then,  to  avoid  a  calamity  so  great,  but  inevitable  if  we  depart  from 
our  Constitution,  and  allow  any  legislation  about  religion,  or  the  ap- 
propriation of  public  money  for  sectarian  schools,  we  should  have  no 
religion  at  all  in  our  Public  Schools.  Let  the  Bible  and  articles  of 
religious  faith  be  taught  at  home  and  in  our  Sabbath  schools,  and  in 
our  houses  of  worship  ;  but  not  in  the  Public  School.  And  if  we 
want  denominational  schools,  let  us  have  them,  but  let  each  denomi- 
nation or  sect  pay  for  its  own  schools,  just  as  it  does  for  its  own  pas- 
tors and  places  of  worship. 


VI. 

Religiousness  of  the  American  peoples^  although  their  Government 
has  no  religion. 

"  The  Americans  manage  without  a  State  establishment  to  infuse,  to  a  large 
extent,  the  Christian  element  into  their  public  acts.  And  the  history  of  the 
growth  of  Christianity  among  them,  proves  that  formal  established  relations 
between  the  Church  and  the  State,  are  not  essential  to  the  maintenance  of 
national  christian  character." — London  Christian  Times. 

'*'  The  experience  of  all  Christians  since  the  time  when  perfect  religious  lib- 
erty was  established  in  these  United  States,  proves  that  the  peace  and  order 
of  society  are  promoted  and  secured  by  allowing  every  one  to  worship  his 
Creator  in  the  way  which  apnears  to  him  most  agreeable  to  the  Divine  will ;  " 
and  that  "  entire  liberty  of  conscience  is  not  only  compatible  with  the  exis- 
tence and  safety  of  religion,  but  that  true  Christianity  operates  with  the 
greatest  energy,  and  prevails  in  its  greatest  purity,  where  the  Church  relies 
under  the  Grace  of  its  Lord  and  Saviour,  on  nothing  to  sustain  and  advance 
its  interest,  but  the  power  of  truth  and  goodness,  and  the  impartial  exercise 
of  its  own  spiritual  discipline." — Resolutio7is  of  the  General  Assembly  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church  in  Philadelphia^  1830. 

The  heading  of  this  chapter  is  chosen  by  design,  for  in  our  judgment, 
the  terms  "religiousness"  and  "American  peoples,"  are  better  fitted 
to  express  our  meaning  as  to  the  spiritual  condition,  state  and  pro- 
visions for  religious  worship  among  the  multitudinous  sorts  of  people 
in  the  United  States,  than  any  others  which  we  could  select.  As  to 
the  maintenance  of  society  and  the  providing  for  the  religious  wants 
of  the  inhabitants,  the  voluntary  system  of  the  United  States,  will 
compare  favorably  with  establishments  in  other  countries.  But 
in  order  that  this  point  may  be  presented  free  from  national  bias 


44  THE   BIBLE   AND    POLITICS. 

I  beg  attention  to  the  following  statement  from  a  Roman  Catho- 
lic traveler  among  us,  and  who  is  an  enlightened  philosophical 
French  writer,  whose  work  on  America  is  well  known  as  a  store- 
house of  information  and  valuable  reflections. 

"  While  religion  in  America  takes  no  direct  part  in  the  govern- 
ment of  society,  it  is  nevertheless  to  be  regarded  as  the  foremost  po- 
litical institution  of  the  country. 

"  In  the  United  States,  religion  exercises  but  little  influence  upon 
the  laws,  and  upon  the  details  of  public  opinion ;  but  it  directs  the 
manners  of  the  community,  and  by  regulating  domestic  life,  it  regu- 
lates the  State.  Nor  is  there  any  country  in  the  whole  world,  in 
which  the  Christian  religion  retains  a  greater  influence  over  the  souls 
of  men  than  in  America ;  and  there  can  be  no  greater  proof  of  its 
utility,  and  of  its  conformity  to  human  nature,  than  the  fact  that  its 
influence  is  here  felt  most  powerfully  over  the  most  enlightened  and 
free  nation  of  the  earth."  In  accounting  for  this  fact — the  para- 
mount influence  of  religion  over  the  minds  and  manners  of  the 
Americans,  31.  de  Tocqueville  goes  on  to  show  that  the  great  auster- 
ity of  American  morals  is  to  be  ascribed  to  their  religious  faith ;  that 
our  religious  faith  is  chiefly  owing  to  the  influence  of  woman.  The 
influence  of  religion  he  says  "  over  the  mind  of  woman  is  supreme, 
and  women  are  the  protectors  of  morals.  There  is  certainly  no  coun- 
try in  the  world  where  the  tie  of  marriage  is  so  much  respected  as 
in  America,  or  where  conjugal  happiness  is  more  highly  or  worthily 
appreciated.  In  Europe,  almost  all  the  disturbances  of  society  arise 
from  the  irregularities  of  domestic  life.  To  despise  the  natural  bonds 
and  legitimate  pleasures  of  home,  is  to  contract  a  taste  for  excesses, 
a  restlessness  of  heart,  and  the  evil  of  fluctuating  desires.  But 
when  the  American  retires  from  the  turmoil  of  public  life  to  the 
bosom  of  his  family,  he  finds  in  it  the  image  of  order  and  of  peace. 
There  his  pleasures  are  simple  and  natural,  his  joys  are  innocent  and 
calm ;  and  as  he  finds  that  an  orderly  life  is  the  surest  path  to  hap- 
piness, he  accustoms  himself  without  difficulty  to  moderate  his 
opinions  as  well  as  his  tastes.  Whilst  the  European  endeavors  to 
forget  his  domestic  troubles  by  agitating  society,  the  American  de- 
rives from  his  own  home  that  love  of  order,  which  he  afterward 
carries  with  him  into  public  afiairs." 

Another  reason  given  by  this  writer  for  the  great  influence  of  re- 
ligion over  Americans  is,  that  it  extends  to  their  intelligence  as  well  as 
to  their  manners.  Free  from  the  trammels  of  the  oppressive  cere- 
monies and  rites,  forms  and  titles  of  religions  in  the  state  establish- 
ments of  the  old  world,  they  are  more  free  to  investigate  the  sub- 
ject, and  to  adopt  their  own  free  enlightened  views  of  Christianity. 
And  thus,  while  it  takes  no  direct  part  in  the  government,  it  is  never- 
theless the  foremost  political  institution  of  the  country,  and  is  pro- 
perly to  be  regarded  as  indispensable  to  the  maintenance  of  republi- 
can institutions.  It  is  a  general  and  a  proper  impression,  if  I  mis- 
take not,  with  us,  that  enlightened  Christianity  and  liberty  are  insepa- 


DB  TOCQUEVILLE'S  VIEWS.  45 

rable.  We  know  not  how  to  conceive  of  one  without  the  other.  For 
as  De  Tocqueville  has  said  :  "  Despotism  may  govern  without  faith, 
but  liberty  cannot.  Religion  is  more  needed  in  democratic  republics 
than  in  any  others.  How  is  it  possible  that  society  should  escape  de- 
struction if  the  moral  tie  be  not  strengthened  in  proportion  as  the  po- 
litical tie  is  relaxed  ?  and  what  can  be  done  with  a  people  which  is 
its  own  master,  if  it  be  not  submissive  to  the  Divinity?"  (1  vol.  p. 
288.) 

Another  reason,  which  however  is  merely  alluded  to  by  De  Toc- 
queville, for  the  great  influence  of  religion  upon  the  people  of  the 
United  States,  is  the  perfect  separation  of  the  Church  from  the  State, 
and  the  little  part  taken  by  Priests  and  Clergymen  in  political  mat- 
ters. I  have  no  doubt  that  he  was  correct  in  saying  that  the  peaceful 
domination  of  religion  in  America,  is  mainly  attributable  to  the  sepa- 
ration of  Church  and  State. 

"  I  do  not  hesitate,"  says  he,  "  to  affirm,  that  during  my  stay  in 
America,  I  did  not  meet  with  a  single  individual  of  the  Clergy  or  the 
Laity,  who  was  not  of  this  same  opinion  upon  this  point." 

But  I  very  much  fear,  if  so  diligent  an  observer  of  men  and  things 
were  to  visit  this  country  now,  whether  he  could  make  as  favorable  a 
report  of  us  as  he  did,  more  than  twenty  years  ago.  Is  religion  as 
supreme  over  the  minds  of  the  American  people  now,  as  it  was  twen- 
ty-five years  ago  ?  Is  it  as  true  now  as  it  was  then,  that  Clergymen 
eschew  political  themes,  and  employ  themselves  wholly  in  works  of 
charity  and  in  expounding  the  word  of  God  ?  Is  the  dominion  of  re- 
ligion as  peaceful  now  as  it  was  then  ?  Are  the  different  sects  and 
churches  living  in  the  same  harmony  ?  And  if  these  questions,  or 
any  similar  ones,  must  be  answered  adversely  to  what  we  should 
wish,  where  is  it,  and  on  what  account  is  it,  that  unfavorable  answers 
have  to  be  returned  ?  Is  it  not  where  the  three  thousand  Clergymen 
petitioned  Congress  that  infidelity,  and  "  the  thousand  isms"  that 
have  so  much  disturbed  the  peace  of  the  churches  and  of  the  country 
prevail  ?  Is  it  not  in  the  land  of  the  forty  Ministers  and  Laity  of 
one  of  our  oldest  colleges,  more  or  less,  who  turn  aside  from  their  du- 
ties as  Professors  and  Pastors,  to  lecture  the  President  of  the  United 
States,  that  we  find  more  skepticism  and  religious  fanaticism,  and 
errors  of  all  sorts,  than  anywhere  else  ?  Is  it  not  just  where — just 
in  those  states  of  the  American  Union — where  there  has  been  the 
most  legislation  for  religion  as  such — for  religion  in  the  public 
schools,  and  for  the  observance  of  the  Sabbath  as  a  religious  day,  that 
we  see  the  greatest  amount  of  professed  infidelity,  and  the  most  dis- 
organizing elements  at  work  in  the  religious  faiths  of  the  people  ? 
From  all  the  light  I  can  gather  on 'this  subject,  I  am  constrained  so 
to  believe.  And  in  the  light  of  all  past  history,  it  seems  plain,  that 
the  more  fully  Ministers  of  the  Gospel  of  all  creeds  depend  upon  the 
power  of  truth  and  goodness,  the  more  and  the  better  is  the  influ- 
ence they  may  wield  over  the  community.  It  is  by  plying  themselves 
studiously  to  their  holy  calling — to  the  instniotion  of  the  ignorant, 


46  THE   BIBLE   AND    POLITICS. 

the  comforting  of  the  afflicted  with  the  consolations  of  our  holy  re- 
ligion, and  to  the  reading  and  preaching  of  the  word  of  Grod,  and 
causing  the  people  to  understand  it,  that  they  may  do  most  for  the 
advancement  of  true  religion.  It  is  thus,  and  not  by  the  ceaseless 
agitation  of  religious  questions  on  our  political  platforms,  or  by  be- 
sieging every  Legislature  with  reform  measures  and  petitions  for 
^'  Blue  laws,''  that  they  may  restore  the  Church  of  God  to  its  former 
energy  and  power.  It  was  not  by  carrying  petitions  to  the  Roman 
Pro-Consuls  and  Emperors  to  be  signed  in  Ephesus,  Macedonia,  and 
others,  that  Paul  and  Silas  planted  Churches  throughout  Asia  Minor 
and  Grreece.  They  carried  no  civil  statutes  nor  imperial  decrees  from 
Jerusalem  and  Antioch,  carefully  rolled  up  in  parchment  as  an  appen- 
dix to  their  great  commission  from  the  Head  of  the  Church,  to  preach 
the  Gospel  to  every  creature.  They  never  carried  in  their  girdles 
any  authority  from  Caesar,  commanding  his  subjects  to  believe  in  their 
mission ;  but  they  went  on  preaching  until  Caesar  himself  put  the 
cross  on  his  crown.  And  when  John  Wesley  sent  out  his  Mission- 
aries, did  they  go  with  letters  and  decrees  from  the  premier;  or 
rather  did  they  not  go  with  the  frown  of  both  the  Church  and  State 
upon  them  ?  and  yet,  where  in  modern  times  have  greater  results 
been  achieved?  The  pioneer  Methodist  preachers  that  first  pro- 
claimed Christ  in  the  western  wilderness — how  many  statutes  from  the 
Legislature  and  Colonial  governments  did  they  carry  in  their  saddle 
bags  ? 

The  only  point,  however,  which  I  deem  it  important  here  to  insist 
upon  is  this,  that  the  inhabitants  of  the  United  States  are,  on  the 
whole,  a  religious  people,  and  that  they  are  so  without  the  assistance 
of  the  government.  It  is  not  meant  of  course,  that  all  the  people 
of  the  United  States  are  pious,  nor  that  they  are  all  professing  chris- 
tians ;  but  that  compared  with  other  christian  countries,  we  may  truly 
say,  that  we  are  a  religious  people.  And  yet,  it  is  not  because  our 
government,  as  a  government,  has  any  religion,  or  has  done  anything 
for  the  people  to  make  them  religious,  farther  than  to  protect  them  in 
their  religion.  Our  Puritan  Fathers,  Scotch  Covenanters,  Dutch 
Calvinists,  and  French  Huguenots,  were  they  religious  by  the  assis- 
tance of  Caesar,  or  in  spite  of  his  frowns  ?  The  civil  government  has 
never  yet  truly  converted  a  heretic  by  statutes,  nor  made  any  one 
pious  by  the  weight  of  its  arm. 


vn. 

The  History  of  the  formation  of  our  Government. 

It  is  the  purpose  of  this  chapter  to  show  by  a  brief  reference,  to  the 
history  of  the  formation  of  our  Government,  that  the  foregoing  views 
are  correct  as  to  the  religiousness  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  United 
States,  and  yet  that  their  government  has  no  religion. 


WHAT   OUR   FATHERS   MEANT.  47 

It  is  perfectly  plain  from  the  history  of  the  times  and  of  the  for- 
mation of  the  National  Government,  that  the  non-recognition  of  God 
in  the  Federal  Constitution  was  not  designed  by  its  framers  to  be  a 
declaration  on  their  part,  that  they  did  not  believe  in  a  God,  nor  in 
any  religion. 

It  is  well  known,  that  some  of  the  members  of  the  Convention,  which 
framed  the  Constitution,  were  not  only  among  the  ablest,  wisest  and 
best  men  of  the  Nation  but  also  firm  believers  in  Christianity.  It 
is  also  admitted  that  the  people  were  generally  impressed  with  reli- 
gious feeling.  Then,  although  it  was  an  age  of  infidelity  and  vice, 
the  reason  of  the  omission  of  any  religion,  or  of  the  being  and  provi- 
dence of  God  in  the  Constitution,  is  not  that  a  majority  of  the 
members  of  the  Convention  or  of  the  people  that  adopted  it  disbelieved 
the  Divine  origin  of  Christianity. 

What  then  is  the  reason  of  this  omission  ?  Is  it  that  they  meant 
merely  to  prevent  the  establishment  of  Christianity  by  law,  as  was 
common  in  the  old  country  ?  It  is  contended  by  most  writers,  as  far 
as  I  know  who  hold  opinions  contrary  to  those  I  advocate  in  this 
Tractate,  that  this  is  the  meaning  of  the  article  against  a  religious 
test,  and  of  the  amendment  about  religion.  But  I  am  perfectly  sure 
this  is  not  all  the  truth  in  the  case.  It  is  doubtless  true  our  fathers 
meant  to  protest  against  the  establishment  of  Christianity.  But  it  is 
also  true,  they  were  so  thoroughly  convinced  of  the  corrupting  influ- 
ence of  any  union  of  church  and  State,  upon  both  religion  and 
government,  that  they  intended  by  this  prohibition  in  the  funda- 
mental law  of  the  land,  to  render  it  impossible  for  any  one  religion  as 
such,  to  gain  the  favor  and  protection  of  the  Government,  in  contradis- 
tinction to  any  other.  If  they  had  meant  to  say,  "we  will  not  allow 
Christianity  to  be  so  established  by  law  as  is  done  in  Europe — it 
must  be  supported  by  the  voluntary  offerings  of  the  people ;  and  yet 
while  all  religions  shall  be  tolerated,  we  declare  ourselves  to  be  a 
christian  nation,  and  our  Government  a  Protestant  Christian  Govern- 
ment.^' Now  if  this  was  what  they  meant,  as  we  are  told  again  and 
again,  why  did  they  not  say  so  ?  Were  they  not  able  to  express 
themselves  intelligibly  ? 

If  the  men  who  framed  our  Constitution  had  intended  to  say  this, 
they  were  abundantly  able  to  do  so.  But  as  this  was  not  their 
meaning,  and  as  they  were  honest  men,  they  have  said  just  what  they 
meantj  and  have  said  it  so  plainly,  that  I  wonder  any  other  construc- 
tion has  ever  been  put  on  their  language.  They  meant  to  say,  the 
fundamental  laws  of  the  land  know  no  religion  at  all.  "  No  reli- 
gious test  shall  ever  be  required  as  a  qualification  to  any  ofiice  or 
public  trust  under  the  United  States."  And  "  Congress  shall  make 
no  law  respecting  an  establishment  of  religion,  or  prohibiting  the  free 
exercise  thereof."  The  express  language  used,  certainly  conveys  the 
idea  that  they  designed  to  take  a  world-wide  view  of  the  subject,  and 
that  by  religion  they  meant  any  and  every  creed.  And  they  meant 
to  say  that  the  Constitution  and  government  are  intended  exclusively 


49  THE  BIBLE  AND   POLITICS. 

for  civil  purposes.  Keligion  is  not  therefore  mentioned  in  it,  for  it 
makes  no  part  of  the  agreement  between  the  parties  making  and  adopt- 
ing the  Constitution.  In  surrendering  a  portion  of  their  civil  rights  for 
the  security  of  the  remainder,  there  was  no  surrendering  any  part  of 
their  religious  freedom.  It  was  retained  untouched.  It  could  not  be 
surrendered,  for  it  is  an  individual  matter  between  each  man  and 
his  Maker — a  personal  matter  with  which  the  Grovernment  cannot  in- 
terfere. And  besides,  the  differences  of  the  sects  and  churches  were 
then  so  great  and  so  fierce  that  it  was  impossible  to  induce  them  to 
adopt  any  articles  on  the  subject  of  religion.  It  was  admitted  on  all 
hands  that  the  whole  Constitution  was  a  compromise,  and  it  was 
doubtful  whether  it  would  be  adopted — many  feared  it  would  not  be 
adopted — and  it  certainly  would  have  been  rejected  if  any  clause  in 
it  had  recognized  any  religious  dogmas.  For  it  must  be  remembered 
that  there  were  in  the  colonies  High-Churchmen,  Dissenters,  Quakers, 
Huguenots,  Catholics,  Independents,  Presbyterians  and  Baptists. 
Not  a  word  could  be  said  in  the  Constitution  that  could  have  been 
equally  satisfactory  to  all ;  therefore,  nothing  was  said.  And  it  was 
wise  and  best  that  no  religious  test  was  admitted ;  first,  because  it 
would  have  opened  the  door  to  hypocrisy  and  corruption ;  and 
secondly,  the  purity  of  religion  is  best  preserved  by  being  kept  wholly 
separate  from  politics;  nor,  third,  was  any  such  test  or  recognition 
necessary.  The  surest  way  to  promote  religion  is  by  enlightening 
the  mind  and  the  conscience.  "  And  the  experience  of  this  country," 
says  the  excellent  and  learned  Judge  Bayard,  ''  has  proved  that  reli- 
gion may  flourish  in  all  its  vigor  and  purity,  without  the  aid  of  a 
national  establishment ;  and  the  religious  feeling  of  the  community 
is  the  best  guarantee  for  the  religious  administration  of  Government.'' 
— Bayard  on  the  Constitution. 

The  omission  then  to  recognize  Grod  and  a  future  state  in  our 
Constitution,  was  not  a  mere  oversight  as  some  contend.  The  subject 
of  religious  liberty  was  one  that  had  long  agitated  the  country,  or  at 
least  the  oldest  and  most  populous  parts  of  it.  And  it  was  found  to 
be  one  of  so  much  difficulty,  that  in  adopting  a  compromise  for  the 
structure  of  a  fundamental  instrument  like  our  Federal  Constitution 
among  other  points,  it  was  determined  to  be  best,  and  in  fact,  the  only 
thing  they  could  do,  to  make  a  Constitution  without  any  recognition 
of  religion  in  it.  That  it  was  impossible  for  such  men  as  '^3re  the 
framers  of  our  Federal  Grovernment  to  have  omitted  altogel  ler  any 
recognition  of  Christianity  in  the  Constitution  by  a  mere  oversight, 
cannot  be  believed.  For  first,  as  we  have  already  said,  many  of 
them  were  sincere  believers  in  Christianity.  They  surely  did  not 
ignore  it  then  through  inattention.  Secondly,  it  will  be  remem- 
bered that  many  of  our  fathers  were  religious  colonists.  They  were 
men  trained  in  religious  wars  from  their  youth  up.  They  came  to 
America  professedly  as  religionists,  and  to  propagate  here  their  reli- 
gious views.  And  accordingly,  at  first,  they  did  all,  or  nearly  all, 
establish  their  creed  as  the  religion  of  the  colonies   they  founded. 


RELIGIOUS  AGITATION.  49 

This  subject  was  one  therefore  prominently  before  the  public  mind, 
and  in  further  proof  of  this,  some  facts  may  be  stated.  For  exam- 
ple :  Dr.  Chauncey  preached  and  published  a  sermon  in  177^,  in  which 
he  declared  that  the  defeat  of  the  American  army  on  Rhode  Island 
was  caused  by  the  displeasure  of  God  against  the  Legislature  for  not 
passing  an  Act  to  compel  the  people  to  make  up  to  the  Ministers 
what  they  lost  in  their  salaries  by  the  depreciation  of  the  public  cur- 
rency. This  neglect,  of  the  Legislature  he  calls  *'  an  accursed  thing,'* 
(Backus' Ch.  His.  p.  196.) 

And  in  the  Convention  that  met  at  Boston,  September  1st,  1779, 
for  the  formation  of  a  new  Constitution,  and  after  a  general  fast,  on 
the  10th  November,  an  article  was  brought  in  to  give  the  civil  Magis- 
trate power  to  support  Ministers  by  force.     lb.,  197. 

And  Rev.  Mr.  Cooper,  in  a  published  sermon,  preached  in  Boston, 
1780,  says  there  is  so  much  diversity  of  sentiment  among  the  people 
respecting  the  extent  of  the  civil  power  in  religious  matters,  that  he 
earnestly  recommended  "  from  the  warmth  of  his  heart,  that  all  mu- 
tual candor  and  love  be  exercised  on  both  sides.'^  The  salaries  of 
Ministers  of  religion  in  Connecticut  and  Massachusetts  were  collected 
and  paid  by  law  until  1784,  or  until  about  this  time.  The  same  thing 
was  true  in  Virginia.  Another  proof  of  the  fierceness  of  the  con- 
troversies of  these  times  on  this  subject,  is  to  be  found  in  the  life  of 
Rev.  Isaac  Backus,  an  eminent  man  among  the  Baptists  in  the  early 
history  of  the  New  England  Colonies,  and  a  great  champion  of  non- 
conformity in  his  day.  When  by  appointment  of  his  brethren,  he 
waited  on  Congress,  in  Philadelphia,  with  a  memorial  for  perfect  reli- 
gious liberty,  and  to  secure  the  persons,  liberties  and  estates  of  all 
persons  without  any  restraint  on  religious  accounts,  "he  was  threat- 
ened with  a  halter  and  the  gallows."  The  newspapers  were  very  se- 
vere upon  him,  and  among  other  things,  accused  him  of  going  to 
Philadelphia  for  '^  the  purpose  of  breaking  the  Union  of  the  Colo- 
nies," by  fomenting  the  great  diversity  of  religious  sentiments. — 
(Backus'  History  of  the  Church,  p.  11.) 

It  was  in  these  days  that  men  were  "  fined,  whipped  and  impris- 
oned for  conscience  sake  in  the  American  Colonies."  No  less  a  man 
than  the  Rev.  Samuel  Finley,  afterward  President  of  New  Jersey 
College,  barely  escaped  with  his  life,  because  being  a  Presbyterian, 
he  preached  in  New  Naven  and  Milford  contrary  to  the  wishes  of  the 
authorities. 

Nor  was  it  in  the  Colonies  themselves  only  that  this  subject  was 
much  thought  of  and  talked  about.  The  Bishop  of  Landaff  in  1767, 
in  a  sermon  in  behalf  of  the  London  Society  for  the  propogation  of 
the  Grospel  in  foreign  parts,  said  in  congratulating  his  hearers  and  the 
Church  of  England  when  the  British  Government  had  determined 
to  tax  America  :  "  We  may  now  assure  ourselves  that  this  benefit 
will  flow  to  the  church — that  the  American  Church  will  soon  be  able 
to  stand  upon  its  own  legs ;  and  without  foreign  help  support  itself, 
and  spread  itself.  Then  the  business  of  this  society  will  have  been 
7 


■60  THE   BIBLE   AND    POLITICS. 

brought  to  the  happy  issue  intended/'  Backus,  lb.,  p.  185.  From 
this  congratulation  of  the  English  Bishop  at  the  prospect  of  the 
British  Court  taxing  America,  we  learn,  that  the  object  of  this  so- 
ciety for  the  propagation  of  the  Gospel  in  heathen  lands  was  really  to 
plant  prelacy  in  America — that  for  this  they  had  then  been  laboring 
for  nearly  twenty  years,  and  had  seven  ministers  in  North  Carolina, 
and  twenty-three  in  Massachusetts  and  Connecticut.  How  many  in 
other  parts  of  the  Colonies  I  have  not  the  data  at  hand  to  say ;  but 
history  asks,  where  were  these  men  in  the  dark  days  of  the  Revolu- 
tionary struggle  of  1776  ? 

It  was  then  after  men  of  the  finest  talents  and  most  extended  in- 
formation had  inquired  with  vigor  and  patience,  and  with  a  remarka- 
ble keenness  of  perception  and  clearness  of  sight  as  well  as  enlight- 
ment  of  conscience  into  the  true  relations  of  the  Church  and  State, 
that  our  Federal  Government  was  formed.  It  is  not  what  it  is  with- 
out design.  There  is  no  religion  in  it,  not  because  its  framers  were 
ignorant,  or  wicked  or  infidel,  or  forgetful  of  the  interests  of  Chris- 
tianity, but  because  whether  in  the  abstract  they  were  in  favor  of  a 
total  separation  of  Church  and  State  or  not,  still,  under  the  circum- 
stances, they  decided,  as  far  as  our  fundamental  laws  were  concerned, 
so  to  ordain. 

It  is  doubtless  true  that  some  of  the  framers  of  our  government 
were  under  the  influence  of  the  French  Encyclopaedists,  and  did  not 
believe  in  Christianity  at  all.  There  was  much  infidelity  in  the  coun- 
try, if  we  were  to  believe  the  reports  of  churches  in  those  days. 
Patrick  Henry,  in  reference  to  the  want  of  piety  in  the  country,  said  : 
"  The  view  which  the  rising  greatness  of  our  country  presents  to  my 
eyes  is  greatly  tarnished  by  the  general  prevalence  of  Deism,  which, 
with  me,  is  but  another  name  for  vice  and  depravity.'^  Thomas 
Paine  had  considerable  influence  in  the  country.  He  was  the  editor 
of  the  Pennsylvania  Magazine,  in  1774,  and  after  hostilities  com- 
menced with  the  mother  country,  he  published  his  celebrated  pamphlet 
called  "Common  Sense,"  for  which  the  Legislature  of  Pennsyl- 
vania voted  him  five  hundred  pounds.  Soon  aftei-ward,  he  published 
"The  Crisis,"  which  consisted  of  political  appeals  in  behalf  of  the 
Colonies  and  in  justification  of  the  Revolution.  His  "  Rights  of 
Man"  were  published  in  England,  after  Burke's  Reflections  on  the 
French  Revolution  had  appeared.  It  may  be  true,  that  partly  from 
their  own  want  of  religion,  and  partly  from  their  association  with 
France  at  that  time,  that  some  of  the  founders  of  our  govern- 
ment desired  that  there  should  be  no  recognition  of  Christianity 
in  the  Constitution,  thinking  that  if  it  were  left  unsupported  by 
the  State,  it  would  soon  perish  out  of  the  country.  This,  the  fol- 
lowers of  Paine  and  Voltaire  desired,  and  perhaps  thought  this  the 
best  way  to  crush  it  out.  But  this  was  not  the  secret  thought,  nor 
the  design  of  a  vast  majority  of  the  men  who  framed  our  organic 
laws  and  laid  the  foundations  of  our  glorious  institutions.  Certainly 
not.     But  they  did  mean  to  keep  Christianity   absolutely  separate 


I 


WHAT  WE   SHOULD   DO.  61 

from  any  establishment  like  those  known  in  the  old  world ,  and  they 
meant  also  to  put  Christianity  and  Judaism,  and  Mahommedanism, 
and  all  other  religions,  on  precisely  the  same  footing.  If  they  in- 
tended simply  to  discriminate  between  and  to  prefer  and  adopt  Chris- 
tianity in  contradistinction  to  Paganism  or  Judaism,  how  is  it  they 
did  not  say  just  this?  Why  did  they  not  tell  us  just  what  they 
meant?  They  knew  the  meaning  of  language.  They  were  brave 
and  honest.  They  could  not  mean  to  deceive.  And  if  they  did  not 
intend  to  establish  Christianity  in  contradistinction  to  Judaism  or 
Paganism,  as  they  certainly  did  not,  much  less  can  it  be  admitted 
that  they  intended  to  make  this  country  by  law  "  an  Evangelical 
Protestant  country, '^  as  against  Catholics,  Quakers  or  Unitarians.  I 
repeat  here  what  I  have  said  substantially  elsewhere,  if  the  popular 
phrases,  "  Christian  nation,"  "  Protestant  country,"  *' evangelical  re- 
ligion of  the  land,"  and  the  ^'  genius  of  American  Institutions,"  and 
^'  Christian  government,"  mean  anything  more  than  what  I  have 
allowed  to  be  the  only  sense  in  which  they  can  be  applied  to  the  in- 
habitants and  laws  of  this  country,  then  we  should  be  bold  and  hon- 
est, and  say  so.  We  should  make  another  Declaration  of  Indepen- 
dence, and  declare  that  our  Protestant  Bible  ''  is,  and  of  right,  ought 
to  be"  the  basis  of  all  our  institutions,  and  is  the  Supreme  Organic 
Law — and  that  Christianity,  after  the  Protestant  type,  is  our  estab- 
lished religion.  Let  us  tell  Budhists,  Mohammedans,  Israelites  and 
Catholics,  that  they  must  not  come  to  America,  expecting  perfect  re- 
ligious equality — that  we  will  tolerate  them,  but  not  admit  them  to 
be  School  Commissioners,  or  Teachers,  nor  to  enjoy  the  benefits  of 
their  taxes  in  our  Public  Schools,  unless  they  consent  that  their  chil- 
dren shall  be  taught  our  religion  in  these  schools.  I  am  for  being 
fearlessly  honest  in  this  whole  thing ;  and  if  this  is  to  be  our  policy, 
I  wish  the  world  to  know  it.  But  I  do  not  believe  this  was  the  in- 
tention of  our  fathers,  nor  do  I  believe  that  a  majority  of  the  Ameri- 
can people  will  ever  say  they  wish  this  to  be  the  policy  of  the  govern- 
ment, or  the  practice  of  this  country. 


VIII. 


The  Sphere  and  Duties  of  the  Government. 

"  Young  in  years,  but  in  sage  counsel  old, 

To  know 

Both  spiritual  power  and  civil,  what  each  means, 

What  severs  each,  thou  hast  learned, 

Which  few  have  done." — Milton's  Eulogy  of  Vane. 

"  The  end  of  civil  government  is  security  to  the  temporal  liberty  and  pro- 
perty of  mankind,  and  to  protect  them  in  the  free  exercise  of  religion.  Legis- 
lators are  invested  with  powers  from  their  constituents  for  this  purpose  only  ;  and 
their  duty  extends  no  farther.  Religion  is  altogether  personal,  and  the  right  of 
exercising  it  unalienable,  and  it  is  not,  cannot,  and  ought  not  to  be  resigned, 


52  THE   BIBLE   AND   POLITICS. 

either  to  society  at  large,  and  much  less  to  the  Legislature." — Memorial  of  the 
Convention  of  the  Presbyterians  in  Virginia,  in  1785,  to  General  Assembly  of  the 
Commonwealth  of  Virginia. 

If  Infidelity  contemns  the  Church,  it  is  fanaticism  to  despise  the 
State,  and  both  are  the  products  of  ignorance  and  folly.  For  both 
the  Church  and  the  State  are  ordained  of  God  and  are  of  co-ordinate 
jurisdiction — the  one  for  the  spiritual  interests  of  men,  and  the  other 
for  their  civil  and  temporal  well-being.  They  may  and  ought  mu- 
tually to  aid  each  other,  but  never  to  come  in  conflict  with  each  other. 
If  men  were  as  holy  as  angels,  the  restraints  of  morality  and  religion 
would  be  quite  sufficient  to  indicate  the  course  of  duty  and  the  way 
of  happiness.  But  men  are  not  angels.  They  require,  in  addition  to 
the  restraints  and  teachings  of  ethics  and  religion,  the  positive  regu- 
lations of  civil  society  and  the  sanctions  of  municipal  laws.  It  is, 
however,  of  the  first  importance  to  distinguish  between  the  province 
of  religion  and  the  province  of  civil  law.  Jurisprudence,  as  such, 
does  not  look  forward  into  eternity.  In  the  words  of  Professor 
Walker,  of  Ohio,  "  It  begins  and  ends  with  this  world.  It  regards 
men  only  as  members  of  civil  society.  It  assists  to  conduct  them 
from  the  cradle  to  the  grave  as  social  beings ;  and  there  it  leaves 
them  to  their  final  Judge.  Religion  and  morality  embrace  both  time 
and  eternity  in  their  mighty  grasp ;  but  human  laws  reach  not  be- 
yond the  boundaries  of  time.  I  know  no  higher  subject  of  congratu- 
lation than  the  fact,  that  we  have  confined  our  legislators  to  their 
proper  sphere ;  which  is,  to  provide  for  our  social  welfare  here  on 
earth,  and  leave  each  to  select  his  own  pathway  to  immortality/' — 
American  Law,  p.  10. 

It  is  not  denied  but  that  our  social  welfare  here  on  earth  is  inti- 
mately connected  with  our  moral  and  religious  condition  ;  but  it  is 
contended  that  the  all-powerful  aid  of  religion  is  all  the  more  effica- 
cious when  legislators  leave  us,  as  immortal  beings,  to  our  own  con- 
science and  to  our  God.  Religion  is  only  hindered  when  the  Gov- 
ernment interferes  between  us  and  our  Maker. 

There  is  much  confusion  in  all  that  I  have  met  with  on  the  subject 
of  the  Bible  in  schools.  In  one  sentence,  we  are  told  it  is  the  duty 
of  the  State  to  do  this  thing,  and  in  the  next,  that  the  Church  must 
do  it — that  the  State  cannot  teach  religion,  and  yet  that  it  must  com- 
pel the  Bible  to  be  read.  Christ  said,  suffer  little  children  to  come 
to  me,  and  therefore,  the  State  must  compel  them  to  read  the  Bible. 
Christ  commanded  his  disciples  to  preach  the  Gospel  to  every  crea- 
ture, therefore  the  State  must  compel  the  teachers  of  our  schools  to 
read  the  Bible.  Now,  I  acknowledge  I  cannot  understand  this  kind 
of  reasoning.  Nor  should  there  be  any  such  confusion  as  to  the 
duty  of  the  State  and  of  the  Church.  Their  provinces  are  distinct, 
and  if  they  are  to  act  together,  let  us  know  how  much  each  is  to  do ; 
and  if  separately,  let  us  know  where  the  boundary  is.  Is  it  the 
sole  prerogative  of  the  Church  to  educate  her  baptized  children  ?  If 
so,  is  the  Church  to  do  this  through  the  State,  or  without  any  aid 


HOW  THE   STATE  OPERATES.  5S 

from  the  State  ?  Or  if  it  is  the  duty  of  the  State  to  educate  all  its 
children,  is  she  to  do  it  through  the  Churches,  or  independently  ? 
If  we  have  not  distinct  ideas  on  these  points,  we  shall  be  always 
floundering  in  darkness.  Now,  if  it  be  the  duty  of  the  Church — 
that  is,  of  each  denomination  of  Christians,  to  educate  the  children 
of  its  membership,  to  the  total  exclusion  of  the  civil  power,  (because 
education  is  strictly  a  religious  duty,)  then  the  State  has  no  right  to 
interfere,  for  it  cannot  be  the  right  and  duty  of  both  the  Church  and 
the  State  to  do  one  and  the  same  thing.  But  if  the  duties  of  the 
State  are  civil  and  not  sacred;  and  if  the  duties  of  the  Church  are 
sacred,  and  not  civil,  as  they  respectively  are,  then  there  is  a  way  to 
settle  this  question  of  jurisdiction.  If,  as  Bishop  Hughes,  and  a 
great  many  Protestants,  also  contend,  it  is  the  especial  duty  of  the 
Church  to  control  the  entire  education  of  youth,  then  it  must  be 
shown  that  education  is  wholly  a  religious  thing,  and  to  be  conducted 
in  all  its  parts  by  spiritual  authority  alone,  just  as  the  sacraments  are 
administered.  But  we  are  not  prepared  to  adopt  this  view.  For 
there  are  obligations  resting  on  a  man  as  an  individual,  and  as  a  mem- 
ber of  society,  to  educate  himself  and  his  family,  without  any  regard 
to  his  religion  at  all.  Nor  are  these  obligations  to  be  attributed  to 
his  religion.  In  the  sense  that  the  civil  government  has  a  right  to 
provide  for  its  own  security,  it  has  a  right  to  provide  the  means  of 
educating  its  children,  just  as  it  has  to  adopt  measures  to  developeits 
physical  resources.  But  this  does  not  mean  that  the  State  can  come 
into  my  house  and  take  my  children  and  educate  them,  and  teach 
them  a  religion  that  I  do  not  believe,  or  wish  them  to  embrace. 
Obviously  this  cannot  be  the  meaning  of  our  friends,  who  insist  so 
strenuously  upon  the  duty  of  the  State  to  teach  the  Bible  to  its  chil- 
dren, and  yet  their  language  would  warrant  such  a  construction. 

Now,  in  developing  the  sources  of  its  wealth,  and  thereby  pro- 
viding for  its  well-being,  how  does  the  State  proceed  ?  Does  not  the 
State  find  its  prosperity  the  most  effectually  promoted  by  leaving 
many  things  to  be  done  altogether  by  individual  effort — some  things 
to  domestic  police  or  family  government  and  education — and  other 
things  to  voluntary  associated  effort  ?  This  is  undoubtedly  the  policy 
of  our  government,  both  as  to  secular  and  spiritual  affairs.  Rather, 
I  should  say,  it  is  the  design  of  our  government  to  leave  religious 
things  wholly  to  the  conscience.  And  this  clearly  because  they  do 
not  lie  within  the  domain  of  the  civil  authorities.  How,  then,  can 
the  compulsory  use  of  the  Bible  anywhere  come  within  the  power  of 
the  State  ?  Whatever  may  be  the  duty  of  the  State  as  to  the  educa- 
tion of  its  children,  that  education  must  be  secular,  and  not  religious. 
In  the  art  of  reading  and  writing,  or  of  acquiring  a  knowledge  of 
chemistry  or  algebra,  is  there  anything  more  distinctively  religious 
than  in  the  art  of  ploughing,  or  in  tanning  leather,  or  building  a  ship  ? 
It  seems  to  me  there  is  not.  Nor  do  I  believe  that  a  company  of 
children  are  any  more  likely  to  become  infidels  or  vicious,  at  the  Pub- 
lic Schools,  learning  grammar  and  arithmetic,  than  the  boys  and  girls 


54  THE   BIBLE   AND  POLITICS. 

who  are  learning  trades,  or  are  brought  up  in  the  factories.  I  believe 
the  danger  much  greater  in  the  latter  than  in  the  former.  Is  it, 
then,  the  duty  of  the  State  to  have  the  Bible  read  in  every  carpen- 
ter's or  blacksmith's  shop,  and  to  have  the  girls  in  the  milliner's 
store  or  the  cotton  mill,  taught  their  catechism  ?  All  the  right  the 
State  can  have  to  educate  its  children  must  be  civil,  and  not  religious, 
and  must  rest  wholly  on  its  right  to  provide  for  its  welfare.  In  many 
of  our  States  the  power  to  direct  the  education  of  the  people  is 
declared  and  limited  in  the  Bill  of  Eights,  and  is  classed  with  the 
power  to  build  roads.  It  is  very  plain,  therefore,  that  in  assuming 
to  help  in  the  education  of  children,  the  State  does  not  intend  to 
interfere  with  the  individual  rights  secured  by  the  Constitution, 
among  which  are  the  rights  of  conscience  and  perfect  religious  freedom 
without  any  disability  on  account  of  religious  opinions. 

One  of  the  pastors  of  this  State,  whose  attention  was  called  to  this 
subject,  says  :  '^Legislation  to  compel  the  reading  of  the  Bible  in 
common  schools,  or  the  observance  of  Sunday,  is  neither  right  in 
principle  nor  happy  in  its  results.  The  end  proposed  to  be  accom- 
plished by  such  legislation  does  not  fall  within  the  province  of  the 
State.  Laws  are  mainly  useful  as  bars  across  the  paths  of  trans- 
gression ;  as  a  general  thing,  they  should  be  put  up  only  when  trans- 
gression is  expected.  True,  the  State  may  do  many  things  which 
the  individual  will  not  or  cannot  do — either  singly  or  by  voluntary 
combination  with  others — such  as  exercising  a  general  superintend- 
ence over  commerce,  and  intercourse  with  other  States  and  nations  ; 
constructing  or  aiding  public  works  essential  or  conducive  to  public 
prosperity,  &c.  The  State  must  also  protect  the  individual  in  the 
enjoyment  of  his  personal  rights,  redressing,  as  far  as  possible,  the 
wrongs  he  suffers  in  person,  reputation  or  estate,  (  which  he  ought 
not  to  attempt  singly)  and  securing  to  him  the  right  of  being  judged 
in  all  cases  according  to  law,  and  not  by  caprice  or  wanton  authority. 
Here,  if  I  am  right,  the  duties  and  the  just  powers  of  the  State  end. 
Within  the  limits  above  implied  the  individual  should  be  left  to  edu- 
cate and  develop  himself  in  perfect  freedom.  The  State  may  en- 
courage general  education  by  affording  to  the  masses  facilities  for  its 
attainment,  but  may  not  say,  without  tyranny,  that  the  individual 
shall  learn  to  read,  or  ichat  he  shall  read,  having  learned ;  that  he 
shall  adopt  and  practice  any  religion,  or  what  religious  faith  he  shall 
adopt  and  practice.  He  has  never  yielded  up  to  the  State  the  au- 
thority to  decide  such  matters  for  him,  nor  entrusted  his  conscience 
to  its  legislative  direction  in  them.  The  State  infringes  upon  his 
personal  rights  when  it  assumes  to  do  this.  If  the  Legislature  en- 
acts a  law  that  he  shall  read  the  Bible  in  school  or  anywhere,  or  that 
he  shall  observe  Sunday  as  a  day  of  rest  from  work  and  play,  because 
these  things  are  essential  to  public  and  private  virtue,  or  for  any 
other  reason,  it  is  not  to  prevent  transgression  ;  it  is  not  to  protect 
and  secure  individual  rights )  it  is  not  to  promote  a  public  work  or 
good  essential  to  general  prosperity,  without  an  improper  interference 


HOW  FAR  WE  ARE   PROTECTED.  65 

witli  individual  rights,  and  which  individuals  would  not  better  attain 
if  left  to  their  own  free,  voluntary  action ;  it  is  to  force  him  to  an 
act  which  should  be  left  to  his  own  conscience  and  free  choice. 
Such  is  my  opinion/^ 

Thus  writes  one  of  the  ablest  and  most  devoted  ministers  of  this 
State.  The  province  of  the  government  is  to  'protect  the  people  in 
the  pursuits  of  life — not  to  destroy  their  individuality,  nor  assume 
the  control  of  their  free  agency,  unless  they  abuse  it  by  infringing 
on  the  rights  of  others.  Whatever  may  be  true  of  other  govern- 
ments, this  is,  unquestionably,  the  design  of  ours.  In  relation  to 
the  farmer,  the  merchant,  the  sailor,  and  all  other  pursuits,  the  ob- 
ject of  our  government  is  to  protect  them  in  their  rights.  The 
government  sells  the  farmer  the  land,  but  it  does  not  furnish  him 
with  a  plow,  nor  build  his  fence  nor  his  dwelling  house  \  it  only 
says  :  you  shall  be  protected  from  violence  in  pursuing  your  industrial 
arts,  and  in  the  enjoyment  of  the  fruits  of  your  labor;  your  house 
shall  be  your  own  castle,  and,  as  long  as  you  obey  the  laws  of  the 
land,  no  one  shall  molest  you.  So,  in  like  manner,  our  government 
says  to  every  one  :  you  may  worship  one  god,  or  many  gods,  or  no 
god  at  all,  just  as  your  own  conscience  teaches  you  \  but,  in  your  wor- 
ship, and  in  your  religion  there  must  be  nothing  that  is  a  nuisance, 
or  an  offense  at  civil  law;  if  there  is,  then  you  pass  from  the  province 
of  religion  and  the  security  of  your  altars  into  the  domain  of  the 
civil  magistrate,  and  he  must  deal  with  you  for  offenses  indictable  at 
common  law. 

The  government  does  not  build  a  church,  nor  educate  nor  support 
a  pastor.  It  says  to  the  people  you  may  build  a  house  of  worship  of 
any  size  or  style  you  please — furnish  it  after  your  own  taste,  and  have 
any  sort  of  a  priest  or  minister  you  choose.  All  we  will  do  is  to  pro- 
tect you  just  as  we  do  your  neighbors.  It  is  not  our  province  to 
furnish  you  with  a  religion,  nor  to  support  it  for  you.  Your  religion 
is  an  individual  matter  between  your  soul  and  your  Creator.  It  is 
not  our  duty  to  teach  it  to  you  ;  it  is  taught  to  you  in  your  Churches. 
The  State  cannot  teach  our  children  religion ;  and  if  the  State  should 
profess  a  willingness  to  establish  the  denomination  to  which  I  belong, 
and  to  teach  its  creed  and  catechism,  I  should  oppose  it  with  all  my 
might,  and  to  the  last  moment  of  life.  If,  then,  the  meaning  is,  that 
it  is  the  duty  of  the  State  to  give  the  children  a  liberal  education, 
without  teaching  them  religion  of  any  kind,  how  and  by  what  au- 
thority does  it  become  the  duty  of  the  State  to  cause  the  Bible  to  be 
used  in  the  Public  Schools  ?  What  kind  of  a  book  is  the  Bible  ? 
Is  it  not  a  religious  Book  ?  Is  it  not  religion  itself  ?  And  is  it  not 
just  because  it  is  such  a  book — just  because  it  is  such  a  book  as  Pro- 
testants believe  in,  that  so  much  zeal  is  manifested  for  forcing  its  use 
in  our  Public  Schools  ?  If  not,  I  confess  I  do  not  understand  the 
subject  at  all.  If  it  were  to  teach  the  children  how  to  read,  or  how 
to  write,  or  even  the  geography  of  the  holy  land,  or  the  botany 
of  the  trees  and  flowers  of  Mount  Lebanon  that  the  Bible  is  to  be 


M  THE   BIBLE  AND   POLITICS. 

read  or  used  in  the  Public  Schools,  then  I  couk-  understand  n  ome- 
thing  of  the  consistency  of  the  argument ;  but  this  is  not  the  object. 
The  professed  object  is  to  teach  religion,  because  religion  is  the  basis 
of  all  good  morals,  and  is  necessary  to  our  national  existence.  And 
still  more,  the  object  of  those  who  are  so  strenuous  in  advocating  the 
use  of  the  Bible  in  our  Public  Schools  is  to  teach  not  merely  religion 
but  Christianity,  in  contradistinction  to  Judaism  or  Mohammedanism ; 
and  Protestant  Christianity  in  contradistinction  to  the  faith  of  the 
Greek,  Komish,  or  Armenian  Churches.  Now,  if  this  be  not  their 
object,  I  do  not  comprehend  their  purpose,  nor  understand  their  argu- 
ments at  all.  We  must  then  come  to  this  issue  :  Education  is  to  be 
secular,  or  it  is  to  be  religious,  or  it  is  to  be  both.  If  it  is  to  be  both, 
then  the  State  is  only  able  to  superintend  one  part  of  the  work.  And 
if  it  is  to  be  wholly  secular,  then  the  Bible  is  not  to  be  forced  into 
the  schools,  for  the  moment  that  is  done,  the  State  takes  cognizance 
of  a  religion,  and  undertakes  to  teach  it  to  our  children.  But  surely 
this  cannot  be  done  in  our  country.  The  legislature  has  no  more  right 
to  direct  the  reading  of  the  Bible  in  a  school,  than  it  has  to  direct  its 
own  members  what  church  they  must  worship  in.  Nor  has  the  legis- 
lature any  more  right  to  authorize  the  Board  of  Directors  to  compel 
me  to  have  my  child  listen  to  the  reading  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  in 
the  Public  School,  or  to  require  any  teacher  to  read  a  particular  ver- 
sion, than  they  have  to  authorize  a  Board  of  Visitors  to  compel  such 
or  such  a  version  of  the  Bible  to  be  read  in  our  Churches.  The 
proposition  may  be  twisted  around  and  around,  and  stated  in  many 
different  ways ;  but  in  every  one  of  them,  the  meaning  of  it  at  bottom, 
and  unknown  and  unsuspected  it  may  be,  by  many  who  support  it,  is 
a  union  of  Church  and  State.  It  is  a  dangerous  step,  and  should  at 
once  be  resisted  in  all  proper  ways ;  for  if  persisted  in  and  allowed  to 
prevail,  it  will  lead  inevitably  to  much  sectarian  bitterness,  and  in  the 
end  to  civil  and  religious  wars.  And  just  in  the  proportion  that  our 
laws  allow  us  the  perfection  of  religious  freedom,  in  the  very  same 
measure  should  our  religion  make  us  forbearing  and  charitable,  and 
restrain  us  from  doing  what  is  wrong,  unjust,  rash  or  oppressive. 

I  do  not,  then,  understand  it  to  be  the  province  of  the  Grovernmeut 
of  the  United  States  to  interfere  with  different  religious  views,  nor 
to  determine  what  religion  is  true,  nor  what  is  false.  It  is  a  civil, 
and  not  a  religious  institution.  It  is  intended  to  protect  equally 
every  citizen  in  the  enjoyment  of  the  religion  he  chooses,  so  long  as 
he  does  not  invade  the  rights  of  his  fellow-citizens,  and  to  show  pre- 
ference to  none.  It  must  be  so,  for  the  Constitution  has  not  granted 
to  the  government  the  power  of  defining  or  legislating  for  the  Divine 
law,  nor  is  the  Legislature  competent  to  determine  what  are  the  laws  of 
God.  This  point  is  left  to  each  citizen,  and  so  long  as  he  respects  the 
equal  rights  of  others,  he  is  not  amenable  to  any  human  tribunal  for 
his  religious  sentiments.  Our  government,  then,  as  such,  is  incapa- 
ble of  performing  a  religious  act.  It  does  not  assume  to  determine 
any  religious  controversy,  whether  between  Christianity  and  Judaism, 


GENERIC   SOCIETIES   IN   HARMONY. 


6t 


or  between  ProtestAatism  and  Catholicity;  nor  can  it  do  so,  for  it  is 
plain,  that  if  once  the  Government  takes  upon  itself  to  perform  such 
an  act,  then  the  way  is  open  to  destroy  all  our  religious  liberties. 
No  martyr  ever  suffered,  but  for  the  violation  of  what  the  supreme 
power  in  the  case  had  determined  to  be  the  law  of  Grod,  that  is,  the 
established  religion. 

There  ought  not  to  be  any  conflict  between  the  sphere  of  religion 
and  the  civil  authorities,  for  the  duty  of  the  State  is  civil,  not  sacred^ 
and  the  duties  of  the  Church  are  sacred,  not  civil.  In  the  city  there 
are  Methodist,  Baptist,  Congregational,  Presbyterian,  Episcopalian  and 
Catholic  Churches,  with  their  respective  pastors  and  parochial  super- 
vision. The  surface  lines  of  their  respective  domains  lie  over  one 
another,  and  cross  each  other  many  times,  and  over  and  above  or  be- 
low them  all,  is  the  civil  jurisdiction  and  the  multitudinous  lines  of  dis- 
tricts for  fire,  for  schools  and  for  election  purposes.  The  territories 
are  coterminous  and  on  the  surface  identical,  and  yet  not  the  same ; 
nor  is  there  any  confusion  or  jostling.  The  plane  of  each  orbit  lies 
within  itself  and  is  well  defined.  And  what  is  thus  true  of  any  one 
district  is  equally  true  of  all.  The  province  of  the  State  is  one 
thing,  and  the  province  of  the  Church  is  another  thing;  their  pro- 
vinces are  different,  but  not  antagonistic.  A  man  may  be  a  good 
Christian  and  at  the  same  time  be  as  good  a  citizen.  He  may  be  a 
faithful  church-member,  and  yet  be  a  loyal  patriot.  Now,  as  Grod  is 
the  author  of  concord  and  not  of  confusion,  the  same  rule  must  ap- 
ply to  his  Church  in  regard  to  the  duty  of  education.  And  if  it  can 
be  shown  that  the  education  of  the  nation's  children  is  purely  a  civil 
duty,  then  it  is  clearly  the  duty  of  the  State  to  control  it;  or  if  it 
can  be  shown  that  the  duty  of  educating  the  nation's  children  is  of 
the  nature  of  religion,  and  that  it  is  the  duty  of  the  State  to  superin- 
tend and  provide  for  the  spiritual  concerns  of  the  people,  then  it  is 
clearly  the  duty  of  the  State  to  teach  religion.     But  not  otherwise. 

It  will  hardly  be  contended  that  in  an  equal  sense  it  is  the  duty  of 
the  Church  and  of  the  State  to  do  one  and  the  same  thing.  If  not, 
upon  which  devolves  the  first  and  highest  duty  in  regard  to  this 
matter  ?  We  answer,  upon  the  Church.  And,  according  to  our 
laws  and  our  practice,  in  the  main,  it  is  conceded  that  education  in 
its  highest  signification  comprehends  both  secular  and  religious  know- 
ledge, and  that  the  State  may  properly  provide  for  the  first,  leaving 
the  Church  to  look  after  the  latter.  It  may,  and  it  does  often  happen, 
that  there  is  so  much  unanimity  of  sentiment  in  a  community,  that 
the  two  things  may  be  combined,  and  a  secular  and  religious  education 
be  carried  on  together.  Wherever  this  then  can  be  done  honestly  and 
in  perfect  justice  to  all,  and  without  any  degree  of  oppression  to  con- 
science, it  is  a  great  blessing.  But  where  this  cannot  be  done,  then 
the  State  must  be  content  to  confine  itself  exclusively  to  a  secular 
education,  leaving  the  Church  to  complete  the  work  in  the  best  way 
she  can.  And  in  such  a  case  it  is  a  question  of  importance  to  know 
just  how  far,  if  at  all,  a  Church  may  receive  the  assistance  of  the 
State.  Our  views  on  this  point  are  given  elsewhere. 
8 


68  THE    BIBLE   AND    POLITICS. 

I  take  an  illustration  here  from  the  great  apostle  of  religious  liberty 
— from  Roger  Williams'  letter  to  the  town  of  Providence,  intended 
to  show  that  freedom  of  conscience  does  not  mean  radicalism  or 
anarchy  :  "  There  goes  many  a  ship  to  sea,  with  many  hundred  souls 
in  one  ship,  whose  weal  or  woe  is  common,  and  is  a  true  picture  of  a 
commonwealth,  or  a  human  combination  or  society.  It  hath  fallen 
out  sometimes  that  both  Papists  and  Protestants,  Jews  and  Turks, 
may  be  embarked  in  one  ship.  Now,  I  affirm  that  none  of  the  Papists, 
Protestants,  Jews,  or  Turks,  should  be  forced  to  come  to  the  ship's 
prayers,  or  worship.  And  I  further  add,  that  I  never  desired,  that, 
notwithstanding  this  liberty,  the  commander  of  this  ship  ought  to 
command  the  ship's  course,  yea,  and  also  command  that  justice,  peace, 
and  sobriety  be  kept  and  practiced,  both  among  the  seamen  and  all 
the  passengers.  If  any  of  the  seamen  refuse  to  perform  their  service, 
or  passengers  to  pay  their  freight ;  if  any  refuse  to  help,  in  person  or 
purse,  toward  the  common  charges  or  defense;  if  any  refuse  to  obey 
the  common  laws  and  orders  of  the  ship,  concerning  their  common 
peace  or  preservation;  if  any  shall  mutiny  and  rise  up  against  their 
commanders  and  officers ;  if  any  shall  preach  or  write,  because  all  are 
equal  in  Christ,  therefore,  no  masters  or  officers,  no  laws  nor  orders, 
no  corrections  nor  punishments,  I  say,  I  never  defied ;  but,  in  such 
cases,  whatever  is  pretended,  the  commander  or  commanders  may 
judge,  resist,  compel,  and  punish  such  transgressors,  according  to 
their  deserts  and  merits." — GammelVs  Life  of  Roger  Williams^ 
p.  165-6. 

One  of  the  blessings  of  Christianity  is  that  it  regards  human  be- 
ings as  real  individualities.  Man,  the  individual,  in  Greece  and  Rome 
was  nothing.  The  State  was  everything.  But  under  the  Gospel  man 
is  regarded  as  an  entity  having  an  immortal  nature,  and  relations  and 
duties  to  his  Creator  that  the  government  has  no  right  to  meddle 
with.  It  is  a  part  of  infinite  wisdom  to  distribute  human  beings  into 
three  grand  generic  societies,  harmonious  and  yet  altogether  distinct, 
and  yet  not  in  anywise  destroy  our  individualities.  I  mean  the 
Family,  the  State  and  the  Church.  And  these  three  agencies  com- 
prise the  whole  period  and  the  whole  field  of  human  existence.  It 
is  in  the  family  the  heart  and  afi"ections  are  to  begin  to  develop,  and 
in  the  Church  they  are  to  be  so  educated  as  to  prepare  us  for  the  so- 
ciety of  the  blest,  and  the  State  throws  over  us  all  alike  its  great 
shield  of  protection  from  the  cradle  to  the  grave,  but,  goes  not  with 
us  into  eternity. 


IX. 

Common  Law  does  not  alloto  Legislation  against  the  rights  of  con- 
science. 

"  Non  est  opus  vi,  quia  religio  cogi  non  potest, — nee  potest  Veritas  cum  vi 
conjungi.  Nihil  est  tarn  voluntarium  quam  religio,  in  qua  si  animus  aversus 
est,  jam  sublata,  jam  nulla  est."     Lactantii.  Div.  Inst.  lib.  Inst.  lib.  u.,  cap.  xix. 


COMMON   LAW   BIRTHRIGHT.  59 

The  ablest  and  clearest  exposition  of  the  ^'  sphere  and  duties  of 
government  in  reference  to  public  morality"  that  has  come  within 
my  reach,  is  the  lecture  of  my  most  highly  esteemed  friend,  Fletcher 
M.  Uaight,  Esq.,  of  this  city,  before  the  Young  Men's  Christian  As- 
sociation, in  1855.  And  if  all  who  speak  and  write  on  the  subject, 
were  able  to  do  so  with  as  much  fairness,  calmness,  judgment  and 
good  taste,  as  characterize  this  gentleman's  lecture,  we  should  hardly 
know  how  to  controvert  their  opinions,  although  we  might  not  be 
able  to  adopt  the  same  conclusions.  We  join  heartily  in  Mr.Haight's 
wish  that  Christianity  may  be  a  living  and  controlling  principle  in 
our  country;  but  we  are  not  able  to  see  as  he  does,  that  ^'Protes- 
tant Christianity  is  the  religion  of  the  country.  We  leave  all  others 
free — the  fire-worshipper  of  Persia  and  the  disciple  of  Confucius — 
the  Brahmin  of  India,  and  the  Priests  of  Japan,  Mohammedan  and 
Jew,  may  here,  all  alike,  build  their  temples.  Pagodas  or  Mosques, 
and  kindle  upon  altars  protected  by  public  law,  the  fires  of  sacrifice. 
But  it  is  not  the  less  true  that  we  have  a  religion  of  our  own'' — "  an 
acknowledged  religion,"  "  by  the  admitted  and  repeated  recognitions 
of  every  State  government  in  the  Union  and  of  the  National  govern- 
ment." If  by  this,  we  are  merely  to  understand  that  a  majority  of 
the  peoples  of  the  United  States  are  nominal  Protestant  Christians, 
then  it  is  no  doubt  true ;  but  if  the  meaning  is,  as  most  of  my  friends 
seem  to  understand  it,  that  the  Constitution  and  Laws  of  the  United 
States  so  recognize  Protestant  Christianity  by  requiring  an  oath  or 
affirmation,  and  by  recognizing  other  forms  or  rites  of  religion,  as  to 
make  it  the  duty  of  the  civil  powers  to  promote  and  Hustain  Protes- 
tant Christianity  in  preference  to  any  and  all  other  religions,  then  I 
must  beg  leave  to  difi'er  from  them.  This  construction  does  not  seem 
to  me  to  belong  to  our  fundamental  laws,  because  they  do  not  ex- 
pressly authorize  it.  They  do  not  require  it.  They  seem  positively 
to  forbid  any  such  a  construction.  The  use  of  an  oath  and  the  prac- 
tice of  having  a  chaplain  and  the  observance  of  Sunday,  are  else- 
where considered.  I  attempt  here  only  some  remarks  upon  the  bear- 
ing of  common  law  on  this  subject.  There  is  a  sense  doubtless  in 
which  the  common  law  is  "the birth-right  of  the  Anglo-Saxon."  But 
in  the  United  States,  is  it  not  just  as  fully  the  birth-right  of  the 
Israelite,  the  Italian  and  the  Turk?  It  is  true,  also,  that  '^the  com- 
mon law  of  England,  so  far  as  it  is  not  repugnant  or  inconsistent  with 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  or  the  Constitution  or  laws 
of  the  State  of  California,  shall  be  the  rule  of  decision  in  all  the 
courts  of  this  State."  And  this  I  believe  is  true  of  all  our  States, 
except  Louisiana.  But  has  it  not  also  been  decided  by  the  highest 
colonial  authority  in  Grreat  Britain,  that  Englishmen,  in  planting  new 
colonies,  are  emancipated  from  all  spiritual  jurisdiction  ?  And  in 
declaring  our  National  Independence,  if  not  before,  and  in  effecting 
our  deliverance  from  an  established  Church,  did  we  not  free  ourselves 
from  all  the  laws,  common,  as  well  as  statute,  that  prevailed  in 
England  as  to  religion  ?     I  think  so,  except  so  far  as  relates  to  the 


60  THE    BIBLE   AND    POLITICS. 

protection — not  to  the  promotion  or  sustainiDg  of  religion — but  as  to 
the  protection   of   all  citizens  in  the  enjoyment  of   their   religious 
opinions.     But  this  protection  does  not  mean  sustaining  one  form  of 
religion  in  preference  to  another.     The  Constitutions  of  the  National 
and  State  governments  ''  are  silent."     Is  it  then  true  that  Protestant 
Christianity  is  part  and  parcel  of  the  common  law  in  such  a  sense 
as  to  require  and  recognize  the  enforcement  of  laws  in  favor  of  the 
Christian   Sunday,  because  it  is  a  religious  day  by  Divine  appoint- 
ment, and  the  use  of  our  Protestant  Bible  in  our  State  Institutions  ? 
To  this  I  must  answer.  No.     I  am  aware  that  learned  authorities  are 
quoted,  both  English  and  American,  to  prove  that  "  Christianity  is 
part  and  parcel  of  the  common  law."     Lord  Chief  Justice  Raymond 
is  quoted  as  saying  that,   because  Christianity  is  part  of  the  common 
law  of  England,   it  must  be  protected  by  it,  ''  for  that   whatever 
strikes  at  the  very  root  of  Christianity,  tends  manifestly  to  the  disso- 
lution of  the  civil  government.     And  the  whole   Court  concurred." 
How  this  may  be  in  England,  it  is  not  here  important  to  show ;  but 
if  this  decision  is  applied  to  us,  what  is  its  bearing  ?     Why,  mani- 
festly, that  the  common  law  is  to  be  made  to  sustain  Christianity  at 
the  expense  of  Judaism   and  every  other  religion — "  for  whatever 
strikes  at  the  very  root  of  Christianity,  tends  to  the  dissolution  of  the 
civil  government  ?"     And  in   thus  administering  the  common  law, 
it  must  distinguish,  discriminate,  and  prefer   Christianity— but  how 
can  this  be  done  under  a   government  that  does  not  show  any  favor 
to  any  one  religion  ?     How  can  this  be  done  by  a  government  that 
does  not  undertake  to  decide  any  religious  controversy,  but  does  un- 
dertake to  treat  all  religions  precisely  alike  ?     The  dictum  of  Judge 
Story  and  of  Mr.  Webster,  that  Christianity  is  a  part  of  the  common 
law  of  the  land,  if  admitted,  does  not  settle  the  question  ]  for  it 
decides  nothing  between  Greek  Catholics,   Roman  Catholics  and  the 
Protestant  denominations,  for  all  profess  Christianity.      Whose  Chris- 
tianity is  it   then  that  is  a  part  of  the  common  law  ?     I  admit  that 
this  question  is  of  no  importance  as  to  a  very  large  mass  of  mattera 
that  may  come  within  the   province  of  common  law ;  but  as  to  the 
question  of  our  Protestant  Bible  in  the  Public  Schools,   and  the  ap- 
pointment of  Chaplains,  it  is  a  pertinent  and  vital  question.     In  de- 
ciding then  that  Christianity  is  a  part  of  the  common  law,  nothing 
is  decided  as  between  the  Catholic  and  the  Protestant,  and  the  issue 
about  the  Bible  and  Chaplains,  is  not  therefore  settled.     But  let  us 
look  a  little  more  into  this  celebrated  dictum.     Mr.  Jefferson  shows 
in  a  veiy  remarkable  letter,  which  he  wrote  to  Major  Cartwright  of 
England,  in  1824,  in  the  eighty-second  year  of  his  age,  that  this 
dictum  is  a  "judiciary  forgery,"   "a  judiciary  usurpation  of  legis- 
lative powers,"  by  the  judges  in  their  decisions,  making  "  Christianity 
a  part  of  the  common  law."     He  shows  that  the  original,  on  which 
this  whole  series  of  judicial  usurpations  was  founded,  was  a  mistrans- 
lation from  Prisot.     Prisot  said:     ''To  such  laws  of  the  Church  as 
have  warrant  in  ancient   Scripturey  our  law  giveth  credence."     But 


THE   COMMON   LAW   DICTUM.  61 

Finch,  in  1613,  a  century  and  a  half  after  the  dictum  of  Prisot,  mis- 
translates "ancient  Scripture"  into  ''Holy  Scripture."  And  Win- 
gate,  in  1658,  erects  this  mistranslation  into  a  maxim  of  common  law^ 
copying  Finch  but  citing  Prisot.  And  Sir  Matthew  Hale,  without 
quoting  any  authority,  decided  in  some  of  his  witch-condemning 
trials,  that  "Christianity  is  parcel  of  the  laws  of  England."  And 
thus,  by  these  echoings  and  re-echoings,  it  became  so  established,  in 
1728,  that  all  blasphemy  and  profaneness  were  offenses  indicted  at 
common  law.  Blackstone,  in  1763,  quoting  the  words  of  Hale,  but 
citing  Ventris  &  Strange  and  Lord  Mansfield,  in  1767,  reiterated 
what  has  been  generally  considered  the  same  opinion,  but  which,  I 
think,  is  a  mistake,  as  I  hope  to  show  presently.  Mr.  Jefferson,  if  I 
am  not  mistaken,  was  considered  an  able  lawyer  at  common  law,  and 
in  summing  up  his  investigations  of  this  point,  he  says  :  "And  thus 
far,  we  find  this  chain  of  authorities  hanging  link  by  link,  one  upon 
another,  and  all  ultimately  upon  one  and  the  same  hook,  and  that  a 
mistranslation  of  the  words  "ancient  Scripture"  used  by  Prisot. 
Finch  quotes  Prisot,  Wingate  does  the  same,  Sheppard  quotes  Prisot, 
Finch  and  Wingate;  Hale  cites  nobody;  the  Court,  in  Woolston's 
case,  cites  Hale;  Wood  cites  Woolston's  case;  Blackstone  quotes 
Woolston's  case,  and  Hale,  and  Lord  Mansfield,  like  Hale,  ventures  it 
on  his  own  authority."  It  is  very  surprising  that  such  a  dictum 
should  have  been  adopted.  There  is  no  legal  authority  for  it,  and 
the  practice  of  the  Courts,  both  in  this  country  and  in  England,  alto- 
gether fails  to  sustain  it.  For  if  Protestant  Christianity  is  a  part  and 
parcel  of  the  law  of  the  land,  then  the  profession  of  it  is  a  duty 
which  the  law  should  enforce ;  if  Christianity  is  a  part  and  parcel  of 
our  laws,  in  such  a  sense  as  to  require  the  stopping  of  the  mails  on 
Sunday,  the  appointment  of  chaplains  and  the  compulsory  use  of  our 
Bible,  then  "  whatever  strikes  at  the  very  root  of  Christianity,"  as 
Lord  Raymond  said,  .as  blasphemy,  idolatry,  Judaism,  Mohamme- 
danism, disbelief  of  the  Trinity,  Deism  and  all  heresies;  everything, 
in  a  word,  which  is  contrary  to  Christianity,  would  be  cognizable  as 
an  offense  at  common  law.  But  I  believe  this  ground  has  been 
abandoned,  even  in  England,  since  1825,  The  English  doctrine,  on 
this  subject,  was  quite  clearly  brought  out  in  the  case  of  Bohun  v. 
The  Bishop  of  Lincoln,  and  in  the  trial  of  Richard  Carlisle.  I  see 
no  reason,  if  Christianity  is  a  part  of  our  law  in  the  sense  contended 
for  by  those  who  argue  from  thence,  the  duty  of  the  State  to  compel 
the  use  of  the  Bible  and  to  teach  religion  in  our  Public  Schools, 
why  it  is  not  our  established  religion,  and  why  men  are  not  prose- 
cuted for  any  violation  of  the  second,  third  or  tenth  commandments. 
If  the  State  may  "enforce  the  fourth  commandment,"  why  not  the 
third ;  and  if  the  third  and  fourth,  why  not  the  second  ?  For  if 
Christianity,  Protestant  Christianity,  is  a  part  and  parcel  of  the  law 
of  the  land,  then  it  is  disobedience  to  the  law  not  to  believe  in,  pro- 
fess and  hold  to  its  doctrines  and  usages;  and,  consequently,  no  idols 
can  be  worshipped  in  America,  nor  can  a  man  profess  anything  that 


62  THE   BIBLE  AND   POLITICS. 

is  contrary  to  Protestant  Christianity.  But  if  it  be  said,  if  I  am  cor- 
rect, then  how  does  the  State  take  cognizance  of  adultery,  perjury 
and  murder?  I  answer,  because  the  seventh,  and  eighth,  and  ninth 
commandments  are  incorporated  into  our  penal  code,  and  thus  provided 
for  by  our  positive  laws.  It  is  here,  and  not  in  common  law  exclu- 
sively, not  because  Christianity  is  a  part  of  the  law  of  the  land,  that 
violations  of  these  commandments  are  to  be  punished  by  our  laws. 
And  besides,  the  authority  of  the  State  to  punish  for  the  violation  of 
these  commandments,  cannot  prove  that  Christianity  is  a  part  of  the 
common  law,  for  these  commandments  are  from  the  Mosaic  religion, 
and  this  use  of  them  would  prove  that  the  religion  of  the  Israelites, 
and  not  Christianity  at  all,  was  a  part  of  the  law  of  the  land.  I  am 
fully  persuaded  that  this  whole  chain  of  reasoning  is  ^'  a  fair  sophis- 
try,'^ and  that  our  black  letter  judges  have  been  misled  by  it  through 
their  prejudices  in  favor  of  English  law  and  English  decisions,  which 
are  strongly  colored  by  the  overshadowings  of  the  great  establish- 
ment, the  Church  of  England.  But  even  in  England,  no  such  use 
of  this  dictum  is  made  as  is  desired  here  by  my  friends.  The  laws 
of  England,  I  suppose,  are  statute  and  common,  for  the  Constitution 
of  England  is  a  myth.  The  Statute  laws,  if  I  mistake  not,  date 
from  the  Magna  Carta  and  the  Statutes  of  Westminster ;  but  who 
can  tell  when  the  common  law  began  ?  By  "  ancient  Scripture," 
Prisot  meant,  ancient  tcritten  laws  and  not  the  Holy  Scriptures,  and, 
therefore,  if  his  authority  has  anything  to  do  with  the  origin  of  the  com- 
mon law  among  us,  it  tends  to  prove  that  common  law  is  nothing  but 
a  sort  of  tradition  of  what  was  once  Statute  law.  It  is  held  in 
England,  that  the  common  law  reaches  back  until  the  memory  oi 
man  runneth  not  to  the  contrary.  There  was  a  time,  then,  when 
Paganism  was  the  common  law  of  the  Anglo-Saxons.  And  in 
Prisot's  time,  the  common  law  of  Great  Britain  was  the  Roman 
Catholic  religion  J  and  now  it  is  that  of  the  Church  of  England, 
whose  base  is  that  the  sovereign  is  head  of  the  Church  and  not  the 
Pope,  and  the  Athanasian  creed,  which  the  pious  head  of  the 
Church,  George  the  Third,  would  never  repeat  nor  respond  to. 
Now,  the  Christianity  that  existed,  as  a  part  and  parcel  of  the  boasted 
English  common  law,  prior  to  the  Reformation,  was  the  Christianity 
of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church ;  and  yet  this  is  the  Christianity 
wiiich  is  now  to  authorize  us  to  compel  Catholics  to  read  our  Bible 
and  to  repudiate  their  own?  And  still  more,  the  distinctive  laws  in 
our  codes  which  we  have  taken  professedly  from  Christianity,  are 
truly  and  in  a  higher  sense  essentially  Judaic ;  and  yet,  instead  of 
allowing  the  religion  of  the  Israelite  to  be  a  part  and  parcel  of  the 
law  of  the  land,  in  such  a  sense  as  to  inure  to  his  advantage,  we  call 
those  laws  Christian  and  use  them  to  oppress  the  Hebrew. 

We  know  what  the  religion  of  Turkey  or  of  Russia  is.  We  know  what 
the  Christianity  of  Spain  is,  so  that  as  far  as  any  common  law  is  known 
in  Spain,  where  in  fact  canon  law  and  civil  and  military  codes  only 
are  known,  we  should  be  at  no  loss  to  know  what  Christianity  meant ; 


WHOSE   CHRISTIANITY  IS   IT?  63 

but  with  us,  I  ask  again,  whose  Christianity  is  it  that  is  a  part  and 
parcel  of  the  common  law  ?  Is  it  the  Christianity  of  the  Presbyte- 
rian Witherspoon,  or  of  the  Puritan  Adams,  or  of  the  Episcopalian 
Madison  ?  Is  it  a  Unitarian,  or  a  Trinitarian,  a  Baptist  or  a  Pedo- 
Baptist  Christianity  ?  This  question  must  be  answered,  before  this 
celebrated  dictum  can  be  received.  This  question  must  be  answered 
authoritatively  before  there  can  be  a  single  statute  enacted  to  compel 
any  Christian  rite  or  act  of  worship.  But  this  question  our  govern- 
ment cannot  answer.  Our  organic  laws  are  silent  about  it,  and  have 
imposed  perfect,  absolute  and  perpetual  silence  on  the  subject.  Mr. 
John  Adams,  under  General  Washington,  wrote  to  the  Dey  of  Al- 
giers, that  ''  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  is  in  no  sense 
founded  on  the  Christian  religion.''  Now,  if  such  a  man  as  the 
Puritan  Adams,  at  that  time  when  the  formation  of  the  government 
was  so  recent,  in  an  official  paper  declares  that  the  Constitution  is  in 
no  sense  founded  on  the  Christian  religion,  how  can  wo,  at  this  dis- 
tance, venture  to  say  to  the  contrary  ? 

But  I  desire  particular  attention  to  be  given  to  the  judgment  of 
Lord  Mansfield  so  often  referred  to  in  discussions  of  this  kind,  for  it 
is  plainly  misapplied.  His  real  decision  was  that  the  common  law 
did  not  take  conusance  of  matters  of  religion,  for  that  all  such  mat- 
ters could  only  be  proceeded  with  or  against  by  positive  laios.  We 
take  his  judgment  as  rendered  in  the  House  of  Lords  from  Camp- 
bell's lives  of  Chief  Justices,  2  vol.,  p.  390. 

'^  There  is  no  usage  or  custom,  independent  of  positive  law,  which 
makes  nonconformity  a  crime.  The  eternal  principles  of  natural  reli- 
gion are  a  part  of  the  common  law ;  the  essential  principles  of  revealed 
religion  are  a  part  of  the  common  law — so  that  any  person  reviling, 
subverting  or  ridiculing  them,  may  be  prosecuted  at  common  law." 
From  this  it  will  be  seen,  that  the  language  usually  employed  in  reference 
to  Lord  Mansfield's  decision  is  not  given  correctly,  and  that  those  who 
refer  to  it  as  authority  for  making  laws  to  compel  the  use  of  the  Bible 
or  any  form  of  Christian  worship  in  our  Public  Schools,  use  it  for  a 
purpose  directly  the  contrary  of  what  Lord  Mansfield  held.  The 
sentence  just  quoted  above.  Lord  Campbell,  the  Chief  Justice  of 
Great  Britain,  says :  'Ms  the  true  sense  of  the  often  repeated  maxim, 
that  '  Christianity  is  part  and  parcel  of  the  common  law  of  England.'  " 
And  what  that  sense  is,  appears  from  the  following  sentences,  in  im 
mediate  connection  with  it,  and  from  the  very  same  paragraph  of  the 
original  judgment.  ^'  But  it  cannot  be  shown,  from  the  principles  of 
natural  or  revealed  religion,  that,  independent  of  the  positive  law, 
temporal  punishments  ought  to  be  inflicted  for  mere  opinions  with 
respect  to  particular  modes  of  worship.  Prosecution  for  a  sincere 
though  erroneous  conscience  is  not  to  be  deduced  from  reason  or  the 
fitness  of  things.  Conscience  is  not  controllable  by  human  laws,  nor 
amenable  to  human  tribunals.  Persecution,  or  attempts  to  force 
conscience,  will  never  produce  conviction,  and  are  only  calculated  to 
make  hypocrites  or  martyrs. 


64  THE   BIBLE   AND   POLITICS. 

"  My  lords,  there  never  was  a  single  instance,  from  tlie  Saxon 
times  down  to  our  own,  in  which  a  man  was  punished  for  erroneous 
opinions  concerning  rites  or  modes  of  worship,  but  upon  some  positive 
law.  The  common  law  of  England,  which  is  only  common  reason  or 
usage,  knows  of  no  persecution  for  mere  opinions.  For  Atheism, 
blasphemy,  and  reviling  the  Christian  religion,  there  have  been 
instances  of  persons  prosecuted  and  punished  upon  the  common  law ; 
but  here  nonconformity  is  no  sin  by  the  common  law  ',  and  all  positive 
laws,  inflicting  any  pains  or  penalties  for  nonconformity  to  the  estab- 
lished rites  or  modes,  are  repealed  by  the  Act  of  Toleration,  and  dis- 
senters are  thereby  exempted  from  all  ecclesiastical  censures." 

I  have  now  extracted  from  this  celebrated  judgment  of  Lord 
Mansfield  all  that  pertains,  I  believe,  to  the  point  in  hand.  And 
while  every  word  is  important,  I  press  only  the  consideration  that  it 
is  generally  quoted  to  support  a  proposition  which  is  directly  opposed 
to  Lord  Mansfield's  judgment.  I  leave  it  to  those  more  competent, 
to  whose  profession  it  particularly  pertains,  to  settle  the  question  as 
to  when  and  to  what  extent  all  the  laws  of  England  concerning  reli- 
gion were  repealed  in  America — whether  at  the  Declaration  of  Inde- 
pendence or  at  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution  ?  But  positive  laws 
against  nonconformity  were  repealed  in  England  by  the  Act  of  Tol- 
eration ;  though  offenses  against  Christianity  are  indictable  still  in 
England,  at  common  law,  which  are  not  here.  What,  then,  is  the 
state  of  the  argument  ?  It  stands  thus  :  A  dictum  is  plead,  founded 
on  Lord  Mansfield's  judgment,  that  "  Christianity  is  part  and  parcel 
of  the  common  law  of  the  land ;"  and,  therefore,  the  English  Bible 
must  be,  by  law,  used  in  our  Common  Schools.  The  force  of  such 
reasoning  I  confess  myself  unable  to  see.  If  I  understand  the  argu- 
ment, it  means,  that  it  is  an  offense  at  common  law  not  to  use  the 
Bible  in  our  schools.  And  it  means,  that  a  teacher,  whose  conscience 
will  not  allo\^  him,  as  an  honest  man,  to  read  our  Bible,  is  to  be 
ejected  from  his  place  as  a  teacher  in  the  schools.  That  is,  for  his 
religious  opinions  about  our  Protestant  translation  of  the  Scriptures, 
he  is  denied  the  pursuit  of  happiness  and  of  worldly  support,  open  to 
all  his  fellow-citizens,  whose  religious  opinions  may  be  in  conformity 
with  the  Board  of  Directors.  Now,  this  is  not  directly  to  subject  him 
to  pains  and  penalties,  such  as  the  Romans  inflicted  on  the  early 
Christians ;  but  this  is  persecution  for  religious  opinions — this  is  a 
civil  disability  for  conscience's  sake — this  is  doing  just  what  Lord 
Mansfield  said  could  not  be  done  by  common  law  even  in  England  : 
"  The  common  law  of  England,  which  is  only  common  reason  or 
usage,  knows  of  no  persecution  for  mere  opinions.''  To  apply  this 
dictum  to  forcing  the  use  of  the  Bible  in  our  Public  Schools,  it  is 
necessary : 

1.  That  the  Board  of  Directors  be  constituted  supervisors  of  trans- 
lations and  judges  of  religious  opinions;  they  must  examine  teachers 
on  their  religion  as  well  as  on  their  knowledge  of  grammar. 

2.  It  follows,  also,  that  some  teachers  must  be  hypocrites  or  be 


RELIGION   MORE   THAN   REASON.  65 

ejected  from  their  places.  If  they  cannot  read  with  a  good  con- 
science our  Bible,  then  they  are  martyrs  to  the  extent  of  the  loss  sus- 
tained by  being  denied  their  inalienable  rights  as  to  equality  with 
other  teachers  in  the  pursuits  of  life  and  happiness,  and  the  enjoyment 
of  religious  freedom. 

The  argument,  therefore,  from  the  common  law,  altogether  fails  to 
reach  the  point  aimed  at  by  my  friends.  "The  essential  principles 
of  natural  religion  and  of  revealed  religion,"  says  Lord  Mansfield, 
"are  a  part  of  the  common  law."  ''The  common  law  of  England  is 
only  common  reason  or  usage,"  or,  as  Sheridan  said,  it  is  "the  per- 
fection of  reason."  Now,  Christianity  is  something  above,  something 
more  than  "  natural  religion,"  something  better  than  "  common  rea- 
son or  usage."  And  although  there  is  no  contradiction  between  natu- 
ral and  revealed  religion,  between  reason,  common  sense,  and  the 
Gospel  when  properly  understood,  still  they  are  not  identical;  nor  is 
there  scarcely  a  moral  precept  or  a  usage  common  to  Jews  and  Chris- 
tians, that  may  not  be  said  to  be  a  part  of  the  common  law.  In  fac5t, 
so  far  as  the  reason,  common  sense,  fitness  of  things  and  wise  say- 
ings of  Greece  have  been  embodied  in  the  wisdom,  laws  and  usages 
of  our  day,  in  just  so  far,  we  may  say,  the  proverbs  of  Greece  are  a 
part  of  the  common  law.  But  does  this  admission  authorize  the 
Legislature  to  compel  the  use  of  the  writings  of  Epicurus  and  Pytha- 
goras in  our  Public  Schools  ?  The  argument  is  only  stronger  hy 
degrees  when  applied  to  Christianity,  because  we  are  and  have  been 
Christians;  but  the  degrees  of  strength  are  increased  many  folds  when 
it  is  applied  to  Judaism.  The  laws  of  Moses  and  the  common  law 
of  the  ancient  Israelites,  are  a  more  prominent  element  in  the  laws  of 
our  country  than  the  distinctive  laws  of  the  New  Testament.  Is  it, 
then,  a  fair  argument  to  say,  that  the  religion  of  the  Israelites  must 
be  taught  by  compulsory  statutes  in  our  Public  Schools?  My  fellow- 
citizens,  I  rejoice  in  all  that  Christianity  has  done  for  us.  We  owe 
almost  every  blessing  we  have  to  it,  and  I  earnestly  desire  to  see  it 
permeating  and  pervading  the  whole  land;  and  the  more  its  true 
spirit  prevails,  the  better  for  us.  But  it  is  a  mistake,  a  radical  and 
dangerous  error,  to  assume  that  Christianity,  "Evangelical  Protestant 
Christianity,"  is  in  &uch  a  sense  a  part  of  our  common  law,  that  the 
Legislature  may  show  it  a  preference  over  Judaism  or  Catholicism. 
This  is  to  do  what  Lord  Mansfield  said  could  not  be  done  by  the  com- 
mon law  even  in  England.  Our  laws  cannot  show  special  favor  to 
any  creed ;  here  all  religions,  in  every  sense,  are  on  a  perfect  equality 
in  the  eye  of  the  State. 

It  were,  doubtless,  premature  to  predict  the  final  issue  of  this  con- 
troversy in  America,  but  I  sincerely  hope  that  the  policy  of  the  ad- 
ministration of  our  National  Schools,  will  be  settled  on  a  sound  and 
liberal  and  just  basis,  for  it  is  only  on  such  a  basis  that  the  public 
peace  can  be  maintained,  and  the  prosperity  of  the  State  permanently 
secured.  If  my  positions  are  wrong,  no  one  can  desire  more  sincerely 
than  I  do,  that  the  errors  may  be  pointed  out  and  avoided ;  but  I  do 
9 


6B  THE   BIBLE  AND   POLITICS. 

not  think  the  way  to  do  this  is  to  deal  in  personal  invectives,  nor  in 
abusing  foreigners  and  Catholics,  nor  in  punishing  and  expelling  such 
children  from  the  schools,  as  the  newspapers  say,  has  just  been  done 
from  the  Eliot  School,  in  Boston,  because  their  parents  would  not  let 
them  engage  in  the  Protestant  religious  exercises  of  the  school.  No, 
fellow-citizens,  this  is  not  "the  more  excellent  way''  by  which  to 
make  good  citizens  and  promote  the  well-being  of  society.  This  is 
fanaticism  and  tyranny,  not  the  Gospel  of  the  Prince  of  Peace. 


X. 

This  battle  already  fought. 

Yes,  this  battle  has  been  fought  before.  All  the  pleas  that  I  have 
yet  seen  for  the  compulsory  use  of  the  Bible  in  schools,  if  they  are 
admitted,  lead  to  an  established  religion.  And  whether  a  union  of 
Church  and  State  is  desirable  or  not,  is  not  the  question  now,  for 
our  organic  laws  forbid  the  bands.  A  glance  over  our  previous 
chapters,  especially  the  seventh,  is  sufficient  to  show  that  the  prohi- 
bition of  any  exercise  of  power  by  Congress  to  establish  any  religion 
and  the  prohibition  of  any  religious  test,  or  of  any  hindrance  to  the  ex- 
ercise of  any  religious  opinion,  was  not  a  mere  accident.  It  was  done 
on  purpose.  The  reason  why  our  fathers  did  not  legislate  for  Chris- 
tianity was  not  that  they  did  not  think  of  it.  For  the  most  part  they 
were  regular  Bible  made  men.  Their  minds  and  habits  were  full  of 
Christianity.  This  continent  was  discovered  and  colonized  chiefly 
by  men  zealous  for  the  propagation  of  their  religious  faith.  In  all 
the  first  settlements  religious  worship  was  in  some  form  established. 
And  Mr.  Jefferson  who  was  the  great  champion  of  religious  as  well 
as  of  civil  freedom,  says  that  the  first  republican  legislation  of  Vir- 
ginia, which  met  in  1776,  was  crowded  with  petitions  to  abolish  the 
spiritual  tyranny  that  existed  in  that  State,  and  that  these  petitions 
"  brought  on  the  severest  content  in  ichich  I  have  ever  been  engaged. 
Our  great  opponents  were  Mr.  Pendleton  and  Robert  Carter  Nicholas, 
honest  men,  but  zealous  churchmen." — Footers  Virginia,  326,  Note 
10,  and  Jefferson's  Works,  vol  1.,  31,  32. 

Again,  he  says:  ^'The  bill  for  establishing  religious  freedom,  the 
principles  of  which  had,  to  a  certain  degree,  been  enacted  before,  I 
had  drawn  in  all  the  latitude  of  reason  and  right.  It  still  met  with 
opposition.  *  *  *  And  the  establishment  of  the  freedom  of  re- 
ligion could  only  be  done  by  degrees.'^  The  act  for  religious  free- 
dom in  Virginia  was  not  passed  till  1785,  and  then  only  by  the  great 
exertions  of  Mr.  Jefferson  and  Mr.  Madison,  continued  for  at  least  ten 
years. 

It  is  plain,  therefore,  that  the  framers  of  the  Constitution  were  not 


THE   CONTEST   DECIDED.  67 

ignorant  of  the  subject.  Some  of  them  wished  to  establish  Chris- 
tianity as  the^religion  of  the  country,  with  toleration  to  all  sects.  Some 
thought  if  no  provision  was  made  for  an  established  religion  that  pub- 
lic worship  could  not  be  kept  up;  and  some  were  indifferent  an4 
probably  thought  the  easiest  way  to  extirpate  the  Christian  religion 
was  to  let  it  alone.  At  least,  it  is  perfectly  plain,  our  fathers  adopted 
the  only  practicable  course  for  securing  a  union  of  the  States.  If 
a  Convention  of  all  the  States  of  the  American  Union  could  not  now 
adopt  laws  concerning  religion,  neither  could  it  have  been  done  at 
the  period  of  the  Revolution.  The  subject  of  religious  liberty  had 
long  agitated  the  Colony  of  Massachusetts  Bay,  and  the  people  of 
Connecticut  and  Virginia,  Maryland  and  North  Carolina.  There 
was  great  jealousy  and  uneasiness,  for  many  years  on  the  subject,  mani- 
fested in  the  religious  bodies  of  the  day,  and  in  the  Conventions  of 
Virginia  in  particular,  especially  in  the  sessions  of  the  G-eneral  As- 
sembly of  Virginia  at  Richmond  in  1784. 

A  very  remarkable  paper  on  civil  and  religious  liberty,  was  drawn 
up  in  1775,  for  the  delegates  from  Mecklenberg,  North  Carolina,  to 
the  Provincial  Congress.  It  was  drawn  up  by  Dr.  Brevard,  of  whose 
grave  no  man  knoweth,  for  his  friends,  the  delegates,  Polk,  Avery, 
Pfifer  and  Alexander.  The  13th  article  of  this  paper  expressly 
directs  them  to  vote  for  the  establishment  of  the  Christian  religion, 
as  contained  in  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  and  aa 
explained  in  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith  and  the  thirty-nine 
articles  of  the  Church  of  England ;  and  that  this  should  be  "  the 
religion  of  the  State,  to  the  utter  exclusion,  forever,  of  all  and  every 
other  (falsely  so  called)  religion,  whether  Pagan  or  Papal !"  And  to 
Oppose  to  their  utmost,  "  the  toleration  of  popish  idolatrous  worship." 

The  doctrine  of  the  Mecklenberg  delegates  was,  that  the  paramount 
authority  of  the  Christian  Religion  was  to  be  acknowledged  as  the 
religion  of  the  community,  and  then  that  all  its  sects  were  to  be  on  a 
level  in  political  matters.  They  meant  that  the  State  should  disown 
Infidelity,  Judaism,  Paganism,  and  the  Papal  Church,  and  avow 
Protestant  Christianity  as  the  religion  of  the  land,  and  that  all  Pro- 
testant sects  should  be  on  an  equality.  This  paper  is  remarkable  in 
itself,  and  especially  if  we  remember  the  time  of  its  composition,  and 
that  there  was  little  or  no  religious  strife  or  persecution  known  in 
North  Carolina  prior  to  that  time.  Educated  as  the  Scotch  Irish 
colonists  had  been,  it  is  not  strange  they  were  afraid  of  persecution 
from  the  established  Churches  of  the  old  world.  It  is  wonderful, 
however,  that  in  the  wilderness  of  Carolina,  such  religious  principles 
should  have  so  soon  taken  such  deep  root.  And  it  is  to  be  remem- 
bered, also,  that  these  are  the  men  who  made  the  first  public  declara- 
tion in  America  in  favor  of  Independence  of  the  mother  country  by 
the  constituted  authorities  of  a  State.  Their  declaration  was  adopted 
12th  April,  1776,  and  presented  to  the  Continental  Congress,  May 
27th,  1776,  nearly  six  weeks  before  the  Declaration  of  Independence 
by  Congress.     In  this  Convention  of  1775,  that  proclaimed  Inde- 


68  THE   BIBLE   AND    POLITICS. 

pendence,  there  was  one  minister  and  nine  ruling  elders.  "To  North 
Carolina/'  says  Dr.  Foote,  "  belongs  the  imperishable  honor  of  being 
the  first  in  declaring  that  Independence  which  is  the  pride  and  glory 
of  every  American. '^ 

Now,  why  did  not  the  framers  of  our  fundamental  laws  establish 
Christianity  as  the  men  of  Mecklenberg  instructed  their  delegates  to 
do?  Why  did  they  not  adopt  the  religious  establishment  of  Connecti- 
cut or  Virginia,  of  New  York  or  Maryland  ?  If  they  had  followed 
the  Mecklenberg  instructions,  they  would  have  done  just  what  my 
friends  argue  they  did  actually  do ;  although  they  (our  fathers)  have 
omitted  to  say  one  word  about  doing  any  such  thing.  The  Cavaliers 
of  Virginia  and  the  Puritans  of  New  England,  agreed  that  a  religious 
establishment  in  some  shape  was  essential  to  the  State.  They, 
accordingly,  provided  for  their  own  creed  and  worship,  each  in  their 
own  provinces,  and  drove  from  their  borders,  or  prevented  from 
settling  among  them,  as  far  as  possible,  all  dissenters.  This  they 
considered  a  necessary  means  of  self-defense.  The  Scotch  Irish 
colonists  differed  from  the  Puritans  and  from  the  Cavaliers  in  this, 
that  they  contended  for  the  religious  liherty  of  minorities.  But  in 
process  of  time,  they  all  agreed  to  work  together  to  maintain  the 
Declaration  of  Independence  of  1776,  and  to  establish  civil  liberty 
under  constitutional  laws  and  perfect  religious  freedom,  under  the 
American  Constitution.  We  conclude,  then,  that  the  Constitution 
does  not  recognize  any  religion,  not  even  Christianity,  and  that  this 
silence  is  proof  that  it  was  intended  by  our  fathers  to  leave  it  to  make 
its  way  by  its  own  vital  power  without  any  sustentation  from  the  State. 
And  this  was  a  happy  decision,  even  if  they  could  have  made  a  dif- 
ferent one,  which  we  have  found  highly  impracticable,  if  not  abso- 
lutely impossible.  As  it  was  in  the  infancy  of  Christianity,  when  the 
Church  contended  with  the  giants  of  human  power,  endured  every 
species  of  persecution,  that  it  finally  triumphed,  so,  in  our  country, 
the  cause  of  religion  has  flourished  without  any  State  patronage,  as 
well,  to  say  the  least,  as  in  any  other  land  with  the  help  of  Caesar's 
sword,  and  treasury. 

In  this  view  of  our  previous  history,  it  is  begging  the  question 
altogether  to  say  that,  in  not  requiring,  by  law,  the  Bible  to  be  read 
in  our  Public  Schools,  the  Constitution  and  "  spirit  of  American 
institutions  is  violated.''  As  the  Constitution  and  laws  do  not 
require  this,  of  course  they  are  not  violated.  It  is  not  contended 
they  command  this  to  be  done ;  all  that  can  be  said  is,  they  may 
allow  it,  but  certainly  there  is  no  violation.  Nor  is  it  true  that,  by 
not  compelling  the  reading  of  the  Bible  in  the  Public  Schools,  the 
Word  of  God  is  withheld  from  the  children.  There  is  no  prohibition 
to  their  using  the  Bible — any  Bible  they  or  their  parents  may  choose. 
There  is  no  inquisition  into  their  homes,  commanding  them  not  to 
read  the  Bible ;  by  no  means ;  they  may  go  to  whatever  denomina- 
tional or  sectarian  schools  they  please  on  Sunday,  or  be  catechized 
every  day  at  home  by  their  parents  in  their  own  religion.     It  is, 


THE   BIBLE   NOT   PROHIBITED.  60 

then,  altogether  misstating  the  points  at  issue  to  cry  out  against  the 
monstrous  wickedness  of  violating  our  Institutions  by  withholding  the 
Protestant  translation  of  the  Scriptures  from  the  youth  in  our  Publio 
Shools.  There  is  no  withholding;  there  is  only  this  :  we  do  not  wish 
the  Constitution  and  laws  to  be  violated  by  doing  violence  to  the  con- 
sciences of  our  fellow-citizens.  We  regard  a  Public  School  with  the 
Protestant  translation  of  the  Bible  appointed  to  be  read  by  law,  as  a 
religious  establishment ,  and  as  a  sectarian  institution  ;  and,  as  such, 
it  is  contrary  to  the  fundamental  principles,  and  to  the  entire  spirit 
and  genius  of  American  institutions.  As  we  would  have  every 
human  being  believe  in  the  great  Redeemer,  so  would  we  have  every 
man,  woman  and  child  in  the  world  acquainted  with  the  Bible.  But 
we  are  not  to  do  evil  that  good  may  come ;  we  are  not  to  offend, 
against  the  Bible  and  our  holy  religion,  even  on  the  plea  of  advancing 
it  in  the  world. 


XI. 

7'he  silence  of  the  Constitution. 

The  circumstances  of  our  fathers,  their  surroundings,  and  the  labor- 
ing elements  of  the  times,  were  so  peculiar,  that  it  seems  to  me  a 
very  remarkable  fact  and  one  so  highly  significant  that  our  organic 
laws  are  silent  concerning  Christianity  or  any  distinctive  protection 
to  it  as  such,  that  I  would  have  this  fact  distinctly  remembered. 

1.  We  have  found  that  our  Constitution  and  the  Gospel  recognize  ua 
as  individuals,  as  members  of  society,  and  as  immortal  beings.  And 
we  see,  also,  that  there  are  duties  that  rest  upon  us  as  individuals  that 
cannot  be  performed  by  us  in  any  other  capacity.  The  first  of  these 
individual  duties  is  piety.  Nor  is  it  possible  for  us  by  the  perform- 
ance of  social  or  civil,  or  associated  duties,  to  make  a  substitute  for  per- 
sonal piety.  Neither  the  family  nor  the  State,  nor  the  C  hurch,  can 
take  our  responsibility  as  individuals  in  the  sight  of  our  Maker ;  yet, 
our  personal  religion  may  diffuse  its  odor  throughout  our  whole  de- 
,  portment  as  members  of  families,  and  as  citizens,  and  as  professing 
disciples  associated  in  the  Church.  But  while  a  man  may  and  ought 
to  be  all  the  more  a  better  husband,  father,  citizen  and  church-mem- 
ber, because  of  his  personal  piety,  yet  there  can  be  no  exchange  or 
substitution  of  his  family,  social  or  civil,  or  ecclesiastical  duties,  for 
his  individual  duties  ;  nor  can  his  personal  piety  be  received  as  an 
equivalent  for  his  family,  social,  civil  or  ecclesiastical  duties.  Spe- 
cial obligations  fall  upon  us  in  each  of  these  conditions.  Nor  is  there 
any  conflict  of  laws  in  regard  to  our  duties.  They  are  in  perfect 
harmony.  And  as  to  the  issue  in  hand,  religion  being  an  individual 
spiritual  affair,  and  the  State  being  wholly  a  civil  institution,  we  hold 
that  the  government  has  nothing  to  do  with  it,  but  to  protect  us  all 


70  THE   BIBLE   AND   POLITICS. 

alike  in  our  religions.  Protection,  not  discrimination,  promotion  or 
support — but  simple  and  equal  protection  is  all  our  government 
offers  or  professes  to  know  on  the  subject  of  religion. 

2.  It  appears,  from  the  foregoing  pages,  that  the  attempt  to  prove 
that  we  must  compel  the  use  of  the  Bible  in  our  Public  Schools, 
because  we  are  a  Christian  people,  is  an  argument  founded  in  part 
on  truth,  and  ^  .rtly  in  error.  We  are  a  Christian  people,  but  the 
government  of  the  United  States  has  no  religion.  I  do  not  here 
stop  to  inquire  whether  our  fathers  did  not  err  in  this  matter  or 
not, — but  I  have  asserted  it  as  a  fact,  that  the  United  States  Govern- 
ment has  no  religion.  But,  I  am  told,  I  am  in  error  here,  for  "  the 
Constitution,  and  civil  institutions  of  the  country,  recognize  Christi- 
anity— Protestant  Christianity — as  the  religion  of  this  great  country." 
In  answer :  1.  Let  it  be  observed  that  I  am  speaking  of  the  Federal 
government,  and  of  the  organic  laws  of  the  United  States,  and  not 
of  select  men,  nor  of  town  councils,  nor  of  the  State  governments. 
And  if  I  am  in  error  here,  it  can  be  easily  shown,  for  the  article  in 
our  organic  laws,  making  this  recognition,  can  be  readily  pointed 
out,  if  there  is  any  such.  But  it  is  admitted  there  is  no  such  recog- 
nition. The  Declaration  of  Independence  recognizes  God,  and 
Christianity  by  its  date.  But  this  is  all,  and  this  much  every  Pagan 
might  do.  In  our  treaties  with  Turkey  and  the  Barbary  States,  the 
same  thing  is  done,  and  yet,  on  their  face,  it  is  declared :  "  As  the 
government  of  the  United  States  of  America  is  not,  in  any  sense, 
founded  on  the  Christian  religion — as  it  has,  in  itself,  no  character 
of  enmity  against  the  laws,  religion  or  tranquility  of  Musselmen.'* 
This  clause  is  quoted  from  the  XI  article  of  the  Treaty  with  Tripoli, 
of  4th  November,  1796,  while  General  Washington  was  President, 
and  at  a  time  when  surely  the  meaning  of  the  framers  of  the  Consti- 
tution was  understood.  ^^  The  government  of  the  United  States  of 
America  is  Jiot,  in  any  sense,  founded  on  the  Christian  religion.'* 
And  in  the  treaties  of  1805,  and  afterward  with  Tunis  and  Morocco, 
it  is  said :  "  As  the  government  of  the  United  States  has,  in 
itself,  no  character  of  e72m27y  against  the  laws,  religion  or  tranquility 
of  Musselmen."  Now,  clearly,  such  language  could  not  have  been 
used  if  Christianity,  in  our  government,  had  had  any  preference 
over  the  religion  of  Musselmen.  It  must  also  be  remembered  that 
treaties  with  foreign  powers  are  a  part  of  our  fundamental  laws. 
They  are  equal,  in  authority,  with  the  Constitution. 

Since  then  there  is  nothing  in  the  Constitution  that  recognizes 
Christianity — not  even  the  name  or  existence  of  God,  or  the  doctrine 
of  a  future  state — it  must  be  a  mistake  to  say,  as  my  friends  do  in 
arguing  this  question,  that  our  Constitution  and  laws  acknowledge 
"the  inspiration  of  the  Bible,"  "the  Divine  appointment  of  the  Sab- 
bath," and  "  the  oath  administered  on  the  Bible,  and  the  name  of 
God."  I  repeat,  I  cannot  find  any  such  recognition  whatever  of  the 
inspiration  of  the  Bible  in  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 
Not  a  syllable  to  this  effect.     If  there  is,  let  it  be  shown. 


THE  DIFFICULTY   ILLUSTRATED.  71 

But  it  is  said,  we  have  a  right  to  use  the  Bible  in  the  Public 
Schools  "  because  the  Constitution  does  not  interdict  it."  True,  it 
does  not,  in  just  so  many  words ;  nor  does  it  interdict  the  use  of  the 
Koran,  nor  prayers  to  the  Virgin  Mary.  On  this  ground,  then, 
American  citizens  have  just  as  much  right  to  use  the  Koran  as  the 
Bible.  But  is  it  a  safe  rule  to  claim  the  right  to  do  everything  that 
is  not  interdicted  in  words  ?  And,  does  not  the  C ^institution  ex- 
pressly forbid  what  necessarily  includes  the  use  of  the  Bible  in  the 
manner  that  I  object  to?  The  Constitution  says  :  ^^  No  religious 
test  shall  ever  be  required  as  a  qualification  to  any  office  or  public 
trust  under  the  United  States."  Now,  if  the  Bible  is  to  be  read  or 
used  by  law  as  a  text-book  in  our  Public  Schools,  how  will  this  article 
of  the  Constitution  apply  ?  Suppose  the  case  :  Mr.  B.  is  passed  by 
the  Committee  of  Examiners  as  in  every  way  well  qualified  to  take 
charge  of  a  school,  and  then  the  President  of  the  Board  gives  him  a 
Bible,  and  says  :  Sir,  you  are  to  read  a  chapter  from  this  book  every 
morning,^-with  or  without  comment  and  prayer,  as  the  case  may  be. 
But,  Mr.  B.  says,  my  church  forbids  me  to  touch  that  book  ;  it  is  con- 
trary to  my  conscience  to  read  it ;  I  cannot  do  so.  Now,  what  is  to 
be  done  ?  clearly,  the  School  Commissioners  are  requiring  a  religious 
test,  and  must  either  yield  or  deny  Mr.  B.  his  inalienable  right  to 
the  pursuit  of  life  and  happiness  in  an  honest  calling  that  is  open  to 
his  fellow-citizens,  and  not  to  him,  because  of  his  religious  belief. 
Now,  it  is  impossible  to  reconcile  this  with  the  Constitution  and  with 
the  Federal  government.  And  in  the  Amendment,  ^'  Congress  shall 
make  no  law  respecting  an  establishment  of  religion,  or  prohibiting 
the  free  exercise  thereof.  "  Now,  is  not  the"  making  of  a  law  to  use 
the  Bible  in  Public  Schools  making  a  law  respecting  the  establish- 
ment Oi  religion  in  the  schools  ?  and  does  not  such  a  law,  as  in  the 
above  case,  prohibit  the  free  exercise  of  religion  ?  Language  means 
nothing,  if  these  Articles  do  not  prohibit  the  making  of  any  law 
that  excludes  any  one  from  the  Public  Schools  on  account  of  religious 
opinions.  Our  government  is  one  of  limited  powers;  and,  as  no 
right  to  legislate  for  Christianity  was  yielded  up  to  the  General 
government,  so  we  cannot  assume  the  right  to  make  laws  in  favor  of 
our  peculiar  views  of  Christianity  from  the  mere  silence  of  the  Con- 
stitution, and  especially  as,  constructively,  at  least,  all  such  legislation 
is  forbidden ;  nay,  it  does  seem  to  me  to  be  not  only  by  construction 
forbidden,  but  to  be  absolutely  and  expressly  forbidden  in  the  little 
tliat  it  does  say,  and  its  silence  is  tantamount  to  a  positive  prohibition. 


XII. 

Sunday,  Oaths  and   Chaplains. 

Nor  is  there  in  our  fundamental  laws  a  syllable  that  recognizes  the 
Christian  Sunday  as  a  religious  day,  and  requires  it  to  be  kept  as 


72  THE   BIBLE  AND   POLITICS. 

such,  because  of  its  ^^  Divine  appointment."  If  there  is,  I  have 
never  yet  seen  it.  The  Supreme  Court  and  Congress  do  not  usually 
have  a  sederunt  on  the  Lord's  day,  nor  is  it  usual  for  them  to  sit  on 
Christmas,  on  the  first  of  January  or  the  Fourth  of  July.  But  Acts 
of  Congress  passed  on  Sunday  morning,  are  as  valid,  I  presume,  as 
if  passed  on  any  other  day.  The  Government  mails  travel  on  Sun- 
day. The  resting  of  Congress  and  the  intermission  of  the  usual 
course  of  business  on  the  Lord's  day,  is  nowhere  that  I  can  find, 
predicated  upon  the  Divine  appointment  of  that  day.  Our  fathers, 
by  continuing  the  observance  of  the  Sabbath,  meant,  without  legis- 
lating on  the  subject,  to  continue  a  necessary  and  most  salutary  prac- 
tice, but  they  did  not  mean  organically,  to  decide  the  controversy 
between  Hebrews  and  Christians,  and  say  that,  the  first  day  of  the 
week  must  be  kept  as  Sabbath,  because  of  its  Divine  appointment. 
A  majority  of  them  were  Christian  men,  and  so  believed )  and  all  of 
them  found  one  day's  rest  out  of  seven,  necessary  to  health  and 
mental  vigor;  but  I  apprehend  not  one  of  them  intended  to  affirm 
any  religious  dogma  concerning  the  Sabbath  by  continuing  its  ob- 
servance. And  that  this  is  the  true  view  of  the  Constitution  on  the 
subject,  is  proven  from  the  fact,  that  there  is  nothing  in  the  Consti- 
tution to  prevent  Congress  from  adjourning  every  Friday  night — and 
re-assembling  every  Sunday  morning,  if  a  majority  shall  wish  so  to 
do.  Nor  is  there  anything  in  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States 
prohibiting  any  State  Legislature  from  appointing  Friday,  in  the 
place  of  Sunday.  Now,  if  our  fundamental  laws  did  recognize 
"  the  Divine  appointment  of  the  Christian  Sabbath,"  surely,  it  could 
not  be  true,  that  any  other  day  could  be  constitutionally  substituted. 
Let  it  be  distinctly  understood,  that  I  do  myself  believe  in  the 
Divine  authority  of  the  Lord's  day  as  the  Christian  Sabbath,  and 
earnestly  desire  to  see  it  kept  as  a  day  of  Holy  rest  and  for  Divine 
worship,  but  I  wish  to  see  it  so  kept  from  an  enlightened  conscience, 
and  out  of  regard  for  Grod's  laws,  and  not  because  of  mere  legislative 
decrees. 

^'The  end  proposed  by  compulsory  legislation  for  the  Sabbath,'' 
says  my  Reverend  friend,  whom  I  have  already  quoted  in  favor  of 
my  views,  "  is  rather  hindered  than  furthered  by  it.  Men  cannot 
be  legislated  into  vital  piety,  nor  sincere  virtue.  This  can  be  done 
only  by  the  power  of  truth,  persuading  their  free  choice.  Force  a 
man's  action  in  matters  of  conscience  and  private  judgment,  and  you 
close  his  heart  against  that  persuading  power.  You  put  the  insu- 
perable obstacle  of  passion  and  prejudice  in  the  only  possible  way  of 
attaining  the  real  and  desired.  Force  the  Catholics  to  read  the  Bible 
in  school,  and  you  take  the  surest  means  to  exclude  all  its  truths  and 
holy  influences  from  his  heart.  You  shut  yourself  out  at  the  same 
time.  He  will  not  hear  you  on  the  matter  of  religion.  You  have 
trampled  on  his  conscience,  and  that  he  knows,  as  all  know,  true 
religion  cannot  do.  Force  an  irreligious  man  to  keep  Sunday,  and 
you  have  done  what  you  can  to  make  hate,  and  in  his  heart  break 


i 


THE   CHRISTIAN    SABBATH.  1$ 

God's  commandment  requiring  it  to  be  kept  holy.  My  own  congre- 
gation diminished  instead  of  increasing,  during  the  brief  time  that 
the  Sunday  law  was  in  force.  Men  met  me  in  the  street  with  the 
remark,  "  Perhaps  you  had  better  get  a  law  enacted  that  we  shall  go 
to  church  !  I  am  becoming  more  and  more  persuaded  that  if  it  be 
important  that  we  should  have  a  respected  Sabbath  in  this  State,  it 
is  important  that  the  Legislature  let  the  subject  alone  I"  It  is  no 
doubt  proper  to  have  some  laws  concerning  the  Lord's  Day  as  a  civil 
institution — a  police  or  municipal  law ;  but  great  care  should  be  taken 
in  the  making  of  such  laws,  lest  they  do  more  harm  than  good.  And 
the  people,  as  citizens,  and  their  legislators,  are  entirely  competent  to 
attend  to  the  making  of  such  laws,  without  the  assistance  of  Preachers, 
and  Synods,  and  Churches. 

The  argument,  then,  for  the  compulsory  use  of  the  Bible  in  the 
Public  Schools  because  we  are  a  Christian  people,  since  we  keep 
the  Sabbath,  altogether  fails  in  its  application.  We  are  Chris- 
tian peoples  not  because  our  Government  professes  Christianity,  and 
has  made  us  like  itself;  but  simply  in  the  sense,  and  only  because 
a  majority  of  the  inhabitants  are  nominal  Christians.  And  for  the 
same  reason,  and  in  the  same  sense,  we  are  a  Protestant  country. 
But  if  a  majority  should  become  Roman  Catholics,  not  a  word,  article, 
or  syllable  of  our  Constitution  or  organic  laws,  would  have  to  be 
changed  on  that  account.  And  if  the  Israelites  should  so  congregate 
into  any  one  of  our  territories  as  to  have  a  majority,  they  might,  if 
they  so  desired,  establish  their  religion  and  usages,  and  yet  witlx  a 
republican  form  of  government  become  a  member  of  the  Union. 
Now,  if  our  fundamental  laws  did  recognize  the  Christian  Sabbath 
because  of  its  Divine  appointment,  this  could  not  be  done.  And  if 
our  laws  recognized  us  as  a  Protestant  nation,  it  would  be  impossible 
for  us  to  become  either  a  Hebrew  people  or  a  Catholic  country  without 
changing  and  amending  our  laws.  But  I  do  not  see  that  such  a 
change  would  do  any  violence  to  a  syllable  of  our  Constitution  or 
organic  laws.  The  recognition  of  Sunday  is  easily  explained.  A 
majority  of  the  people  believe  it  to  be  a  holy  day  by  Divine  appoint- 
ment. All  nations  in  all  ages  have  found  one  day  of  rest  out  of  every 
seven,  a  physical  necessity  for  man  and  animals.  As  a  majority, 
therefore,  at  the  formation  of  our  Government,  were  nominal  Christians, 
it  was  agreed  to  keep  the  Lord's  Day  as  Sunday.  But  so  far  as  our 
organic  laws  are  concerned,  a  majority  of  the  people  of  the  State  may 
make  Saturday  or  Friday,  or  any  other  day,  Sunday,  if  they  wish. 
The  popular  recognition  of  Sunday  does  not,  therefore,  confer  any 
power  upon  the  Legislature  to  compel  the  use  of  our  Bible  in  the 
Public  Schools. 

But  it  is  said,  again,  we  are  a  Christian  people  because  our  laws 
recognize  an  oath,  and  that  therefore  the  Constitution  requires,  or 
allows  us  to  compel,  the  use  of  the  Bible.  On  this  head  much  might 
be  said,  but  a  few  brief  statements  must  here  suffice.  It  is  a  mistake 
to  say  that  the  Bible,  or  Christianity,  is  necessary  to  constitute  a  valid 
10 


74  THE   BIBLE   AND    POLITICS. 

oath.    Even  in  England  the  oath  of  a  Hindoo  is  as  good  as  the  oath 
of  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury.     The  affirmation  of  a  Quaker  is  as 
good  as  the  oath  of  an  Episcopalian  or  Methodist.     And  the  oath  of 
an  Israelite  is  as  good  as  the  oath  of  a  Baptist  or  Presbyterian.     The 
practice  in  our  courts  is  to  swear  a  man  by  that  which  charges  his 
conscience  the  most,  and  makes  him  feel  most  deeply  his  obligations  to 
tell  the  truth.     The  Gentoo,  the  Chinaman,  the  Turk,  or  the  Israelite, 
is  permitted  to  choose  whether  he  will  be  sworn  as  a  citizen,  or  accord- 
ing to  his  religion.     The  Chinaman  is,  or  was  sworn  by  killing  a  cock, 
or  burning  a  piece  of  paper.     xVnd  when  a  man  takes  an  oath  simply 
as  a  citizen,  there  is  no  necessity  to  use  the  Bible  or  the  name  of  God. 
The  President  of  the  United  States,  and  the  Governor  of  the  State, 
and  such  officers,  can  take  their  oath  or  make  their  affirmation,  with- 
out the  use  of  the  Bible,  and  without  calling  upon  the  name  of  God. 
The  following  is  the  form  of  the  oath,  copied  from  the  Constitution, 
under  Article  II.  :   "  Before  he  enter  on  the  execution  of  his  office, 
he  shall  take  the  following  oath  or  affirmation  :  'I  do  solemnly  swear 
(or  affirm)  that  I  will  faithfully  execute  the  office  of  President  of  the 
United  States,  and  will,  to  the  best  of  my  ability,  preserve,  protect, 
and  defend  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.'  "     This  is  all  the 
oath  as  prescribed  in  the  Constitution.     The  oath  of  the  Governor  of 
this  State  is  thus  given  in  the  Constitution  :  ^'  I  do  solemnly  swear, 
(or  affirm)  that  I  will  support  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States, 
and  the  Constitution  of  the  State  of  California,  and  that  I  will  faith- 
fully discharge  the  duties  of  the  office   of  Governor  of  this  State, 
according  to  the  best  of  my  ability.''     Members  of  the  Legislature, 
and  the  officers,  executive  and  judicial,  take  and  subscribe  this  oath 
or  affirmation.     Nor  is  any  other  catechising  as  to  whether  by  an  oath 
they  mean  an  appeal  to  God,  or  a  belief  in  a  future  state,  allowed, 
These  things  are  left  entirely  to  their  own  conscience.     For  the  Con- 
stitution expressly  says:  "And  no  other  oath,  declaration,  or  test, 
shall  be  required  as  a  qualification  for  any  office  or  public  trust." 
See  sec.  3  of  Article  XL     The  use  of  the  Bible  and  the  calling  upon 
the  name  of  God  beyond  what  is  implied  in  the  word   oath,  though 
often  used,  are  not  then  necessary  to  the  validity  of  an  oath.     The 
Constitution  does  not  require   them.     And  even  if  it  did,  the  name 
of  God  and  the  use  of  the  Bible,  would  not  decide  anything  peculiar 
and  distinctive  in  favor  of  Christianity  or  Protestantism,  for  any  Bible 
or  religious  book  is  as  good  for  such  a  purpose  as  King  James'  trans- 
lation.    There  is  then  nothing  in  our  fundamental  laws  to  prevent  a 
Turkfiom  being  President  of  the  United  States,  and  a  Brahmin  from 
being  Chief  Justice.     And  the  Governor  of  the  State  may  be  a  Rabbi, 
and  the  Lieutenant  Governor  a  Fire  Worshipper.     The  Chief  Justice 
of  the  United  States  is  a  Catholic. 

Forasmuch  as  peculiar  stress  is  laid  upon  the  use  of  an  oath  in  this 
discussion,  I  beg  that  the  real  point  may  not  be  overlooked.  There 
may  be  local  customs  or  statutes  in  criminal  causes  in  which  the 
forms  of  administering  the  oath  are  varied.     But  in  all  cases  it  is  a 


ADMINISTRATION   OF   AN    OATH.  75 

civil  act.  And  the  theory  and  practice  of  the  Government  is  that 
the  oath  he  administered  in  the  way  and  according  to  the  manner 
that  shall  most  thoro^tyhly  charge  the  conscience  of  the  individual 
tah^ing  it  to  tell  the  truth.  This  is  the  gist  of  all  the  authorities  on  the 
subject  both  in  Great  Britain  and  in  this  country.  And  our  Consti- 
tution and  laws  are  satisfied  to  have  the  oath  administered  in  the 
way  and  manner  that  most  fully  charges  the  conscience  with  the  fear 
of  punishment  for  perjury.  There  is  absolutely  nothing  to  prevent  a 
Mohammedan,  a  Budhist,  an  Israelite,  or  a  Deist,  or  even  an  Atheist, 
if  he  is  a  native  born  citizen  and  is  elected  from  being  President  of 
the  United  States.  No  religious  test  can  he  required.  And  the 
oath  of  office  does  not  require  a  recognition  of  the  existence  of  God, 
nor  the  use  of  the  Bible.  It  is,  then,  alogether  an  error,  to  argue 
from  the  ordinary  use  of  the  oath,  that  we  are  organically  a  Chris- 
tian people.  So  far  as  our  laws  determine  anything  on  this  point, 
a  Polytheist  is  as  good  as  the  Unitarian,  and  the  Unitarian  no  better 
than  the  Trinitarian  or  absolute  unbeliever.  But  even  if  our  laws 
did  so  recognize  a  Supreme  Being  and  a  future  state,  as  to  deny  the 
validity  of  the  oath  of  a  man  who  professed  to  be  an  atheist,  it  does 
not  follow,  that  anything  has  been  gained  for  the  position  that  we  are 
"rt  Protestant  Christian  country -j^  for  the  Gentoo  and  Turk  believe 
the  same  and  can  take  the  oath  as  well  as  a  Christian.  And  be- 
sides nothing  distinctive  in  favor  of  a  Protestant  Christian  can  be 
drawn  from  such  regard  to  an  oath,  for  Israelites  and  Catholics  are 
entitled  to  as  full  credit  for  their  oath  as  the  bluest  Protestant. 

But,  again :  ''  The  Continental  Congress  opened  its  sessions  with 
prayer,  and  it  is  our  custom  to  have  chaplains.'^ 

No  doubt  some  of  the  members  were  pious,  and  really  desired  to  have 
the  sessions  opened  with  prayer  \  and  all  felt  that  it  was  a  decent  and 
proper  expression  of  regard  for  the  religious  sentiment  of  the  people 
of  the  United  States ;  but  I  do  not  believe  it  was  ever  contemplated 
by  Congress  that  the  election  of  chaplains  was  to  be  construed  into 
a  proof  that  the  government,  as  such,  knows  any  religion,  or  recog- 
nizes any  creed.  The  present  practice  of  having  all  sorts  of  ministers 
to  officiate  in  rotation  is  in  proof  of  this.  Nor  was  any  session  of 
Congress  ever  opened  with  prayer  because  any  article  of  the  Consti- 
tution required  it.  Is  it  a  Congressional  act  ?  May  not  Congress 
be  regularly  organized,  and  proceed  with  business  constitutionally 
without  an  opening  prayer  ?  Where  is  the  clause  in  the  Constitu- 
tion requiring  a  chaplain  ?  The  practice  of  Congress  proves  nothing 
more  than  that  they  have  generally  deemed  the  services  of  a  chaplain 
a  becoming  respect  toward  religion,  and  a  personal  convenience  or  ne- 
cessity. It  no  more  establishes  religion,  or  proves  the  organic  Chris- 
tianity of  the  government  than  the  usages  of  the  House  in  regard 
to  their  porters,  or  fires  and  lights,  prove  that  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  prescribes  their  personal  customs  and  individual  com- 
forts. And,  moreover,  if  it  be  so  that  this  custom  proves  that  we 
are  <^a  Christian  nation,  an  Evangelical  Protestant  Christian  nation,'' 


76  THE   BIBLE  AND   POLITICS. 

what  are  we  when  a  Unitarian,  a  Roman  Catholic  Priest,  or  a  Hebrew 
Rabbi,  opens  Congress  with  prayer  ?  Is  there  anything  in  the  Con- 
stitution and  laws  of  the  United  States  to  prevent  the  opening  of  the 
morning  sessions  of  Congress  by  an  Imaun  reading  a  chapter  from 
the  Koran,  or  a  high  priest  of  Deism  reading  a  chapter  from  the 
writings  of  Thomas  Paine  ?  There  is  absolutely  nothing  in  the  Con- 
stitution forbidding  this,  if  a  majority  of  the  members  of  Congress 
(which  may  the  God  of  our  fathers  in  mercy  forbid)  should  ever 
wish  to  have  it  so.  It  is  plain,  then,  that  there  is  nothing  in  the 
organic  or  fundamental  laws  of  the  Federal  Government  that  recog- 
nizes or  discriminates,  and  shows  a  preference  for  any  form  or  kind  of 
religion.  But  even  if  we  grant  all  that  is  contended  for,  we  deny 
the  inference — namely,  that  the  State  has  the  Constitutional  power 
to  violate  the  conscience  of  a  tax-paying  citizen  by  causing  a  religious 
book  to  be  used  in  the  Public  Schools  contrary  to  the  conscientious 
remonstrances  of  the  teacher  and  parents. 

I  do  not  take  the  ground  (as  some  have  done  in  vindicating  our 
government  for  not  providing  for  the  support  of  a  religion,  or  in  de- 
fense of  our  Legislature  for  not  electing  chaplains,)  that  the  church 
and  the  closet  are  the  only  proper  places  for  prayer  ;  for  it  is  no  part  of 
the  duty  of  our  government  to  provide  a  religion  either  for  the 
people  or  for  their  legislators.  In  the  sense  of  deciding  what  religion 
is,  or  of  deciding  which  is  true  or  which  is  false — and  which,  there- 
fore, is  to  be  sustained  and  which  put  down — the  American  Govern- 
ment knows  no  religion.  It  is  not  for  the  government,  therefore,  to 
pay  any  one  for  offering  prayer  or  reciting  a  creed.  The  govern- 
ment allows  every  one  to  believe  what  creed  he  pleases,  and  to  pray 
as  much  as  he  pleases,  and  whenever  he  pleases,  provided  he  does 
not,  on  the  plea  of  so  doing,  commit  a  trespass  or  become  a  nuisance. 
Every  citizen,  whether  an  office-holder  or  a  mere  voter,  is  to  enjoy 
his  own  religion,  or  do  without  any,  but  the  government  does  not 
undertake  to  support  any  citizen's  religion  ;  nor  do  I  see  how  it  is 
possible  for  a  popular  government,  like  ours,  to  occupy  any  other 
platform.  We  are  a  multitude  of  peoples,  and  of  eveiy  kind  of  opin- 
ion, and,  as  citizens,  all  equal,  and  the  moment  any  form  or  creed  of 
religion  is  preferred  by  the  government,  that  moment  a  difference  is 
made,  a  preference  is  shown,  which  is  directly  contrary  to  our  funda- 
mental laws. 

Nor  is  it  true  that  our  legislators  and  congressmen  "represent  the 
moral  and  religious  status  of  their  constituents  ;''  and  that,  therefore, 
it  is  the  first  duty  of  a  civilized  people,  in  its  legislative  halls,  to 
reverence  the  Deity,  "  and  that,  consequently,  chaplains  must  be 
elected  and  paid  out  of  the  State  treasury.''  Our  legislators  are  not 
elected  to  represent  our  moral  and  religious  status,  but  our  civil 
rights,  and  our  civil  rights  only  so  far  as  they  have  been  surrendered 
to  the  Government.  But  among  the  rights  surrendered  there  is  no 
power  given  to  the  Legislature  to  make  laws  to  secure  the  reading  of 
the  Bible.     We  do  not  vote  for  members  to  the  Legislature  on  reli- 


ABOUT    CHAPLAINS.  77 

gious  orrounds.  It  is  impossible  for  them  to  represent  the  morality 
and  religious  belief  of  their  constituents.  Nor  does  the  Constitution 
give  them  any  power  over  our  religious  status.  Our  legislators,  then, 
have  just  as  much  right  to  take  the  people's  money  to  buy  their 
coats  with  as  to  pay  a  chaplain  to  say  prayers  for  them.  If  a  chap- 
lain is  needful,  it  is  as  a  personal  necessity,  and  not  as  a  civil  or  legis- 
lative one.  But  this  is  not  prohibiting  the  members  of  the  Legisla- 
ture from  having  a  chaplain,  provided  they  employ  and  pay  him  on 
their  individual  account.  Nor  is  this  hindering  the  members  from 
being  pious.  God  forbid.  But  have  they  not  homes  in  which  to 
pray,  and  may  they  not  go  to  Church  on  the  Lord's  day,  selecting 
their  own  place  of  worship  ?  It  seems  to  me  just  as  necessary  and  as 
constitutional  for  the  government  to  appoint  a  chaplain  to  every 
Court,  and  have  every  jury  impannelled  upon  prayer. 

But,  then,  it  is  argued,  we  must  have  a  chaplain  in  the  Legisla- 
ture, in  order  to  show  that  California  is  not  altogether  beyond  the 
pale  of  civilization — that  is,  we  must  put  the  cloak  of  piety  over  the 
Legislature  elect,  and  pay  a  man  to  pray  for  our  lawgivers,  in  order 
to  make  our  characters  respectable  abroad.  I  had  supposed  hypocrisy 
was  a  species  of  irreligion.  Besides,  I  have  yet  to  hear,  for  the  first 
time,,the  charge  from  abroad  that  California  is  beyond  the  restraints 
of  religion  and  morality,  because  there  is  no  chaplain  in  her  Legisla- 
ture. I  have  heard  that  bribery,  gambling  and  lawlessness  had 
made  us  appear  as  a  reckless,  God-forsaken  people  ;  but  I  have  never 
heard  that  we  were  disgraced  for  not  having  the  prayers  of  our  leg- 
islators said  by  proxy. 

Some  of  the  advocates  of  chaplains  lament  that  there  has  been  in 
our  Legislature  so  much  '^  disgraceful  squabbling'^  over  the  election, 
and  failure  to  elect  a  chaplain.  And  this  is  just  one  of  the  reasons 
why  there  should  be  no  such  election,  and  no  such  an  officer  known 
to  the  Legislature,  as  such.  Has  it  ever  been,  or  will  it  ever  be 
otherwise  than  that  political  and  partizan  views  should,  more  or 
less,  control  such  elections  ?  Those  who  have  seen  most,  and 
thought  most  on  this  subject,  admit  that  such  elections  have  been 
mainly  partizan  movements. 

But  it  is  contended  that  the  Legislature,  in  not  electing  chaplains, 
shows  an  impious  disregard  for  the  custom  of  other  Legislatures,  and  for 
religion  itself.  Is  this  true  ?  Has  Virginia,  or  New  York,  or  Pennsylvania, 
or  Louisiana  a  chaplain  ?  Is  the  House  of  Commons,  or  the  Assembly 
of  France,  or  the  House  of  Lords,  with  its  bench  of  bishops,  opened 
with  prayer  ?  Is  the  Supreme  Court  opened  with  prayer  ?  If  not,  is 
it  an  impious  institution  ?  So  Dr.  Cheever  may  consider  it,  but  the 
American  people  and  our  laws  have  not  so  decided.  And  where  and 
how  is  this  kind  of  legislating  away  the  people's  money  for  religion  to 
end,  if  we  once  begin  ?  For,  surely,  if  the  Legislature  must  have  a  chap- 
lain, so  supported,  our  asylums,  and  hospitals,  and  state  prisons  have 
a  much  greater  need  for  chaplains.  For  our  legislators  are  supposed 
to  be  free,  able-bodied  men,  who  can  attend  church,  while  the  in- 
mates of  our  houses  of  mercy  and  correction  cannot  do  so. 


78  THE   BIBLE   AND   POLITICS. 

But  it  is  said,  and  with  some  force,  ^^  the  Federal  Grovernment 
may  send  chaplains  with  its  armies  and  fleets,  because  it  should  pro- 
vide the  consolations  of  religion  for  all  its  servants,  and  that  the  min- 
ister of  religion  is  as  necessary  as  the  surgeon/'  To  deny  this,  seems 
indeed  a  great  hardship,  if  not  a  species  of  cruelty.  But  there  never 
has  been  instituted  among  men  a  perfect  government.  Some  imper- 
fection or  defect  is  found  in  them  all.  If  chaplains  could  be  ap- 
pointed equally  acceptable  to  all,  and  without  showing  a  preference 
for  a  creed  or  sect,  then,  perhaps,  the  army  and  navy  could  be 
thus  supplied.  But  this  is  not  the  case.  Thus  far,  almost  all  such 
appointments  have  been  made  from  one  of  the  smallest  denomina- 
tions in  the  country,  and  that,  too,  against  the  religious  preferences 
of  nine-tenths  of  the  men  in  the  army  and  navy.  I  do  not  profess 
here  to  speak  with  mathematical  accuracy,  but  I  believe  I  am  very 
nearly  correct.  Is  this  right  ?  Is  it  constitutional  for  the  Federal 
Government  to  give  such  a  preference  to  one  of  the  smallest  churches 
in-  the  land  ?  Is  it  constitutional  to  take  the  public  money  to  pay  a 
chaplain  for  religious  services  that  are  not  acceptable  to  a  majority  of 
the  rank  and  file  of  the  army  ?  I  do  not  think  so.  If  the  majority 
of  a  regiment,  or  of  the  men  on  board  a  man-of-war,  should  elect  a 
chaplain,  then,  possibly,  the  Grovernment  might  make  an  appropria- 
tion to  pay  him,  though  I  doubt  whether  this  is  constitutional,  and  I 
do  not  believe  it  the  best  way.  I  believe  that  the  supplying  of  reli- 
gious consolations  to  the  members  of  our  Legislature,  and  to  the 
officers  and  men  of  our  army  and  navy,  according  to  our  organic  laws, 
should  be  left  to  themselves,  just  as  it  is  to  our  merchant  ships  and 
to  our  frontier  settlements — that  is,  to  their  own  voluntary  support. 
Our  blacksmiths,  police  officers.  Front-street  merchants,  lawyers  and 
physicians  all  need  the  blessings  of  religion ;  but  they  must  provide 
for  their  own  individual  wants.  And,  in  the  same  way,  I  would 
leave  the  army  and  the  navy  and  the  legislatures,  and  I  would  do  so 
the  more  readily,  because  the  different  churches  and  voluntary  reli- 
gious societies  would  then  all  stand  truly  on  an  equality,  and  hold 
themselves  ready  to  help  in  furnishing  such  supplies.  Suppose  a 
regiment  is  ordered  to  the  wilderness,  let  the  men  elect  a  chaplain 
and  pay  him  themselves.  Then  they  will  be  more  likely  to  profit  by 
his  services.  Or  let  a  missionary  society,  by  the  vote  of  the  citizen 
Soldiers,  be  asked  to  send  them  a  minister  of  religion.  If  the  gov- 
ernment appoints  a  Protestant  chaplain,  is  it  a  disobedience  of  orders 
for  a  Catholic  to  refuse  to  accept  of  his  services  ?  I  see  nothing  but 
difficulty  and  the  engendering  of  constant  sectarian  feuds  and  bad 
feeling,  if  the  Federal  Grovernment  touches  anything  that  is  religious. 
It  is  useless,  where  we  have  Christianity  divided  into  so  many  parts 
and  sects,  to  talk  of  a  common  Christianity  that  all  will  accept. 
Chaplains  must  be  of  some  church  or  other.  The  religious  newspa- 
pers have  been  full  of  excited  remarks  on  this  subject  for  several 
years,  and  this  is  but  the  beginning. 

The  Eev. ,  writing  to  me  on  this  subject,  says  :  "Your 


"ex-officio  prayers."  79 

view  of  chaplains  in  the  army,  navy,  legislature,  &c.,  though  entirely 
new  to  me,  strikes  me  as  correct.  It  seems  to  me  that  the  church 
should  keep  the  management  of  religious  matters  in  her  own  hands, 
should  do  the  work  of  religion  by  her  own  voluntary  efforts.  If  the 
Legislature  needs  a  missionary  (of  which  there  is  not  much  doubt) 
and  appears  to  the  Church  to  present  a  promising  field  of  labor,  (of 
which  there  would  be  much  doubt)  the  Church  should  station  a  mis- 
sionary at  the  capitol  to  labor  among  the  legislators,  and  should  sup- 
port him  there  if  they  refused  to  support  him ;  and  he  should  get 
the  ear  of  whom  he  might  and  preach  Jesus  to  them,  and  pray  with 
them,  just  as  the  bethel  missionary  preaches  to  and  prays  with  the  sail- 
ors, or  the  foreign  missionary  with  the  heathen.  So  of  the  army  and 
navy — so  of  every  call  for  a  Gospel  minister's  labors.  Ex-ojfficio  prayers, 
I  fear,  are  not  very  prevalent  to  the  conversion  of  souls,  ^he  State 
never  puts  forth  its  hand  to  help,  patronize  or  any  way  meddle  with 
religion  without  turning  it  into  a  cold  formality  or  heartless  mockery. 
All  religion  should  ask  is  to  be  let  alone.  All  churches  should  ask 
of  the  State  is  freedom  to  wield  the  power  of  truth,  and  then  should  go 
among  men  armed  with  the  might  of  the  Gospel,  to  gain  by  that  the 
ends  which  they  have  sought  in  vain  to  compass  through  petitions  to 
the  Legislature  and  political  vigilance  and  activity." 

In  conclusion,  this  whole  train  of  argument  (I  say  so  with  all  possi- 
ble respect,  for  the  compulsory  use  of  our  Bible  in  our  Public  Schools, 
from  the  use  of  an  oath  and  the  precedents  of  Congress  in  observing 
the  Sabbath  and  having  chaplains,)  is  a  perfect  fallacy.  These 
recognitions  do  not  prove  that  the  United  States  is  a  Christian  coun- 
try in  such  a  sense  as  to  authorize  the  making  of  statutes  to  compel 
the  reading  of  the  Bible  anywhere,  nor  the  observance  of  Sunday 
because  it  is  a  Sabbath  by  Divine  appointment.. 


XIII. 


The  State  not  to  teach  the  Bible  anywhere. 

Our  Government  has  no  Bible.  It  cannot  make  one.  Ii;  does  not 
profess  to  be  able  to  choose  one.  It  does  not  profess  to  believe  in 
any.  How  then  can  it  teach  what  it  has  not  itself  ?  We  .may  wish 
it  were  otherwise ;  but  such  is  the  fact.  As  a  Government  we  have 
neither  Bible  nor  religion.  The  Koran,  the  Hebrew  Scriptures, 
the  Douay  Version,  the  holy  books  of  the  Hindoos,  are  as  much 
recognized  in  the  administration  of  an  oath  as  our  Protestant  Bible. 
No  preference  is  given,  farther  than  that  ours  is  the  most  used,  because 
we  are  at  present  in  a  majority.  And  as  our  government  professes  no 
religion — "  is  in  no  sense  founded  upon  the  Christian  religion,  and 
has  in  itself  no  enmity  to  Islam,'^  so  it  does  not  undertake  to  teach 
any  religion.     The  Constitution  neither  gives  the  officers  of  govern- 


80  THE   BIBLE   AND    POLITICS. 

ment  a  religion,  nor  does  it  require  them  to  know  any  religion  except 
to  protect  all  alike.  Nor  does  Christianity  require  the  civil  magistrate 
to  teach  religion.  Our  Legislature,  consequently,  cannot  compel  the 
use  of  the  Bible  in  the  schools.  If  so,  then  it  is  within  its  province 
to  tell  us  which  of  all  the  books  is  to  be  the  Bible,  and  to  interpret 
the  Bible  for  us.  If  the  State  may  teach  the  Bible,  that  is,  religion, 
anywhere,  it  may  teach  it  everywhere — in  the  churches  as  well  as  in 
the  school-houses.  If  the  school  commissioners  may  take  the  peoples' 
money  to  build  public  school-houses,  where  religious  worship  is  con- 
ducted by  their  authority,  then  they  may  in  like  manner  build  public 
churches,  and  direct  religious  worship  to  be  held  in  them.  As  to 
the  argument,  then,  that  '^  the  State  must  educate  all  the  millions  of 
her  children,  and  that  the  Bible  must  be  the  basis  of  that  education, 
because  it  is  the  Word  of  God  and  teaches  the  true  religion,  and  that 
this  true  religion  is  given  from  God  for  all  mankind,  and  that  no 
other  religion  is,  and  that  therefore  our  laws  must  prefer  and  teach 
our  religion,"  I  answer :  individually  I  believe  that  the  Bible  is  the 
Word  of  God,  and  teaches  the  only  true  religion,  and  should  be  the 
basis  of  the  education  of  our  children,  and  should  be  known  to  all 
men ;  but,  at  the  same  time,  these  are  articles  of  faith,  which  our 
government  has  never  decided  in  favor  of,  nor  adopted ;  and  conse- 
quently, to  take  this  position,  is  to  assume  the  very  points  in  dis- 
pute. And,  moreover,  if  this  argument  is  correct,  then  it  is  the  duty 
of  the  government  to  teach  the  Christian  religion  not  only  to  its 
children,  but  to  its  adult  citizens,  that  is,  to  establish  and  support 
Christianity;  and  still  more,  if  this  argument  is  correct,  then  it  is  the 
duty  of  the  government  to  become  not  only  a  "  defender,"  but  a 
propagator  of  the  faith,  and  to  employ  its  power  to  overturn  all  false 
religions,  and  make  all  nations  receive  the  religion  God  has  designed 
for  them,  and  sent  down  from  heaven  for  the  whole  human  race,  I 
see  no  possible  limitation  to  this  argument,  if  it  be  admitted  to  have 
a  right  beginning.  By  using  the  Bible  I  understand  teaching  religion, 
and  if  it  be  the  duty  of  the  State  to  teach  its  children  the  Protestant 
Bible,  then  the  State  ought  to  declare  itself  a  Protestant  and  a  re- 
ligious institution.  And  if  for  the  reason  that  Protestantism  is  the 
true  religion,  and  our  Bible  truly  from  God,  the  State  must  build 
school-houses,  pay  teachers,  and  put  our  Bible  into  them,  then  I  do 
not  see  why  it  should  not  build  houses  of  worship,  and  put  Bibles 
into  the  pulpit,  and  appoint  men  to  read  and  preach  the  Word  of 
God.  Nor  do  I  see,  if  this  is  correct,  how  the  State  can  stop  here. 
If  this  is  correct,  the  government  should  send  forth  its  fleets  and 
armies  with  the  Bible,  and  compel  all  nations  to  receive  it,  after  the 
manner  of  the  Kaliphs  of  Mohammed. 

It  is  not,  then,  in  my  humble  judgment  an  argument  that  belongs 
to  this  subject,  to  say,  that  we  must  compel  the  use  of  the  Bible  in 
our  schools,  because  it  is  essential  to  a  finished  education.  I  admit 
it  is.  But  then,  a  knowledge  of  Jesus  Christ,  as  a  justifying  Saviour, 
is  of  more  vital  importance  than  a  mere  intellectual  knowledge  of  the 


THE   STATE   HAS   NO   RITUAL   POWER.  81 

written  scriptures.  And,  if  on  the  plea  of  the  importance  of  the 
Bible,  the  State  must  teach  it  to  its  children,  on  the  very  same,  it 
must  teach  Jesus  Christ  to  its  citizens.  But  surely  our  govern- 
ment is  a  civil,  and  not  an  ecclesiastical  or  a  quasi  religious  secta- 
rian institution.  And  I  apprehend,  the  object  of  the  act  estab- 
lishing the  Public  Schools  was  to  have  the  children  educated  in  secu- 
lar knowledge,  not  to  teach  them  religion.  The  State  is  not  compe- 
tent to  perform  a  religious  or  sacramental  act.  The  civil  magistrate 
can  perform  a  marriage  ceremony,  because  the  State  regards  marriage 
as  a  civil  contract,  and  not  as  a  sacrament ;  but  the  civil  magistrate 
may  not  circumcise  or  baptize  my  child,  nor  administer  the  Lord's 
Supper.  These  are  ritual  services.  And  to  the  same  class  belongs 
the  reading  of  the  Bible  and  the  offering  of  public  prayer. 

Nor  is  it  true  that  schools  cannot  be  governed,  and  secular  knowl- 
edge successfully  taught  without  the  formal  reading  of  the  Bible.  Is 
it  true  that  the  discipline  of  our  schools  is  dependent  on  the  simple 
reading  of  a  few  verses  of  the  Bible  ?  Is  it  true  that  secular  learning 
cannot  be  well  taught  unless  it  is  mixed  with  religious  worship  ?  If 
the  children  cannot  be  taught  grammar  without  the  catechism,  how 
is  the  Minister  to  preach  the  creed  without  teaching  secular  knowl- 
edge '{  And  if  we  put  navigation,  algebra,  and  the  catechism  on 
the  same  platform,  then  we  should  not  ask  the  money  of  a  tax-payer, 
who  believes  in  another  catechism,  to  support  that  school.  If  we  do 
not  think  it  right  for  our  child  to  have  to  bow  before  a  picture  of  the 
Virgin  Mary,  and  say  its  prayers,  why  do  we  insist  on  compelling  our 
neighbor's  child  to  read  or  hear  our  Bible  over  his  multiplication 
table  ?  And  besides,  how  is  it  that  an  education  cannot  be  received 
without  religion,  and  yet,  that  education  without  the  Bible,  leads  to 
Infidelity  ?  But  I  do  not  press  this  point ;  for  we  desire  all  men 
to  read  the  Bible.  We  wish  the  education  of  every  one  to  be  satu- 
rated with  its  doctrines  and  spirit;  but  we  insist  that  the  Public 
Schools  are  not  the  proper  place  to  teach  the  Bible,  when  there  is 
objection  on  the  part  of  the  teacher  or  of  the  parents.  The  cabinet 
maker's  shop  and  the  Supreme  Court  room  are  important  and  proper 
places,  but  you  do  not  go  there  to  say  your  prayers,  or  to  be  taught 
your  credo.  The  education  contemplated  by  the  State,  is  clearly  a 
secular  one. 

And,  moreover,  I  deny,  unless  with  some  qualifications  the  despotic 
tyranical  doctrine,  that  it  is  the  duty  of  the  State  to  educate  its  chil- 
dren. I  deny  that  the  State  has  any  right  to  take  my  child  from  my 
arms  and  educate  it  without  my  consent.  And  I  deny  that  it  is  the 
duty  of  the  State  to  make  the  Bible  the  basis  of  its  system  of  educa- 
tion. The  Constitution  does  not  make  it  the  duty  of  the  State  to  do 
so.  Nor  does  Christianity  ask  or  allow  the  State  to  become  its  agent 
in  teaching  the  Gospel.  All  that  Christianity  asks  of  Caesar  is  that 
he  will  just  let  her  alone. 

Now,  I  suppose  all  will  admit  the  State  cannot  raise  money  by  tax^ 
ation  to  support  a  Protestant  pastor.  How  then  can  it  lay  a  tax  to 
11 


82  THE    BIBLE    AND    POLITICS. 

support  a  reader  of  our  Bible  in  the  Public  Schools  ?     Can  the  State 
do  indirectly  what  it  cannot  do  directly  ?   I  think  not. 

But  I  am  told  that  religion  is  the  foundation  of  sound  morals.  So 
I  believe }  but  I  deny  that  the  inference  from  this  is,  that,  there- 
fore, the  State  may  levy  taxes  on  citizens  of  all  sorts  of  religion  for  the 
purpose  of  teaching  any  one  religion.  This  whole  idea  of  sending  the 
children  to  the  Public  Schools  to  be  taught  religion  is  a  fallacy — it 
is  a  novelty.  They  are  not  sent  to  the  Public  Schools  for  any  such 
a  purpose.  When  we  wish  them  to  be  taught  religious  truth  we  send 
them  to  the  Sabbath  School,  to  the  Church,  to  the  priest  or  minister. 
And  because  good  morals  rest  on  true  religion,  are  we  to  offer  vio- 
lence to  our  neighbor's  conscience,  or  suffer  our  own  to  be  oppressed  ? 
I  have  not  so  learned,  either  from  the  Constitution  nor  from  Chris- 
tianity. Nor  is  it  necessary.  For  even  when  religion  is  not  taught, 
as  such,  in  our  Public  Schools,  it  does  not  follow  that  the  children 
are  absolutely  without  morals  and  religion. 

If  I  send  my  son  to  study  law  with  an  eminent  legal  gentleman,  or 
medicine  with  a  medical  man,  or  to  be  instructed  in  the  trade  of  a 
blacksmith  or  a  cabinet-maker,  or  in  the  working  of  a  sewing  ma- 
chine, do  I  expect  him  to  be  taught  religion  ?  No ;  but  I  do  expect 
him  to  be  taught  good  manners  and  good  morals,  both  by  precepts 
and  example,  and  his  religion  I  expect  him  to  get  at  home,  and  on 
the  Lord's  day,  from  the  Sabbath  School  and  the  pulpit.  When  I 
put  my  son  to  learn  a  trade,  it  is  the  trade,  and  not  the  religion  of 
the  master  I  expect  him  to  be  taught.  So  I  send  my  son  to  the 
Public  School,  which  the  State  has  established  by  raising  a  common 
tax,  and  I  send  him  to  learn  to  read  and  write  and  acquire  secular 
knowledge,  and  not  that  he  may  be  taught  religion.  I  teach  him  to 
pray,  and  he  goes  from  family  prayers  to  the  school,  and  I  think 
religion  can  be  much  more  effectually  taught  him  at  home  and  in  my 
own  church ;  and  if  I  am  not  satisfied  with  these  means,  why  then  I 
can  send  him  to  a  sectarian  or  denominational  school,  where  the 
creed  and  ritual  which  I  prefer  are  honestly  and  professedly  taught. 

I  was  much  struck  with  the  answer  of  the  Israelites  in  New  York, 
when  recently  called  upon  to  say  what  objection  they  had  to  the 
reading  of  the  Bible  in  the  schools,  they  replied :  We,  of  course,  do 
not  believe  in  your  New  Testament,  but  we  have  no  objection  to  its 
precepts,  and  as  to  the  religion  of  your  schools  we  care  nothing  about 
it.  We  will  take  care  of  the  religion  of  our  children  at  home.  I 
quote  from  memory,  but  believe  I  am  correct.  And  I  admire  this 
answer.  It  is  the  declaration  of  good,  law-abiding  citizens,  and  it 
expresses  a  proper  confidence  in  the  influence  of  home,  as  the  great 
seminary  of  religious  truth.  As  to  the  deficiency  of  home-teaching, 
and  of  Sabbath  Schools,  and  of  the  Church,  I  have  something  to  say 
in  another  place. 

This  whole  system  of  propagating  the  truth  by  legislation  is  a  part 
of  the  corruptions  that  we  have  inherited  from  the  old  establishnaents 
of  Europe.  It  belongs  to  an  earthly  and  a  sensual  age.  It  is  not 
found  in  the  Grospel. 


CORRUPTIONS   INHERITED.  83 


As  the  learned  Jeremy  Taylor  says,  tlie  using  of  force  by  the  civil 
magistrate  for  the  advancement  of  religion,  "  came  in  as  other  abuses 
and  corruptions  of  the  Church  did,  by  reason  of  the  iniquity  of  the 
times,  and  the  cooling  of  the  first  heats  of  Christianity,  when  the 
Church's  fortune  grew  better,  and  her  sons  grew  worse  ;  for  in  the 
first  three  hundred  years  there  was  no  sign  of  persecuting  any  man 
for  his  opinion,  though  at  that  time  there  were  very  horrid  opinions 
propagated  by  professing  Christians."  It  was  nearly  four  hundred 
years  after  Christ  before  the  secular  arm  was  employed  to  promote 
Christianity.  It  was  not  thought  expedient  or  consistent  with  the 
nature  of  Christ's  Kingdom  to  build  it  up  with  carnal  weapons.  And 
if  the  civil  magistrate  has  authority  to  teach  religion  and  compel  the 
reading  of  the  Bible,  because  he  is  the  civil  ruler,  then  all  magistrates 
in  all  nations  have  the  same  right,  and  we  must  turn  Mohammedans 
when  we  are  in  Turkey,  and  Catholics  when  we  go  to  Mexico ;  or, 
when  Mexico  comes  to  us  and  Catholics  gain  the  majority  on  this 
Coast.  But  obedience  to  the  civil  magistrates  is  commanded  in  the 
New  Testament,  when  they  were  heathen  idolators.  Surely  Chris- 
tian obedience  did  not  then  embrace  matters  of  faith.  Our  Lord, 
though  possessed  of  all  power,  did  not  put  himself  at  the  head  of  le- 
gions of  angels,  nor  arm  his  ambassadors  with  civil  edicts,  nor  did 
He  ever  compel  any  one  by  outward  force  to  hear  him  or  receive  his 
doctrines.  His  apostles  propagated  His  Grospel  only  by  entreaty  and 
persuasion.  How,  then,  do  we  dare  in  his  name  ask  the  Legislature 
to  compel  men  to  keep  His  day  holy  or  to  read  or  hear  His  word  ? 


XIV. 

What  Our  Fathers  Did. 

''  A  cake  and  a  bad  custom  ought  to  be  broken. — A  French  proverb. 

Since  writing  the  foregoing  chapters,  I  have  received  a  communi- 
cation of  thirty-one  closely  written  pages,  from  a  most  excellent  min- 
ister of  the  Gospel,  in  which  he  opposes  my  line  of  argument  with 
great  force.  I  consider  Rev  Mr.  H's  a  most  scholarly,  gentlemanly, 
and  able  document ;  but  still,  not  satisfactory.  The  main  position 
of  his  arguments  is,  that  our  Constitution  and  laws  are  founded  upon 
Christianity,  and  that  they  do  favor  and  prefer,  promote  and  sustain 
the  Christian  religion — that  our  <^  constitutional  provisions  were  not 
intended  to  put  the  Christian  religion  on  the  same  level  with  Moham- 
medanism." ''  To  me,"  says  he,  "  this  idea  is  an  impossible  one.'^ 
The  proofs  my  friend  offers  are  drawn  from  the  history  of  the  early 
settlers  of  this  country,  in  which  he  finds  evidence  that  they  not 
only  meant  to  protest  against  an  established  religion,  like  that  which 
they  had  fled  from  in  the  old  country,  but  to  establish  Christianity 
11* 


84  THE    BIBLE   AND    POLITICS. 

without  sectarianism.  He  argues,  also,  that  liberty,  and  republican 
institutions,  like  ours,  could  never  have  been  established  without  the 
Protestant  religion,  and  that,  therefore,  our  government  ^'  is  in  fact, 
though  not  in  form,  a  Protestant,  Christian  government."  He  appeals 
to  the  charters  of  the  Colonies,  and  to  the  commentaries  of  Kent 
and  Story,  and  to  Mr.  Webster's  speech  on  the  Girard  will — "his 
matured  opinions  in  the  very  prime  of  his  life."  The  result  of  his 
able  and  learned  argument  is,  that,  as  Christianity  is  a  part  of  the 
common  law,  therefore  our  government  is  a  Protestant  Christian 
government,  and  Congress  ought  to  stop  the  mails  on  Sunday,  and 
the  Legislature  ought  to  compel  the  use  of  our  Bible  in  our  State 
institutions,  and  provide  Chaplains.  A  large  part  of  my  friend's 
communication  I  can  admit,  but  I  am  not  able  to  make  the  same 
conclusions.  I  have  said  all  that  seems  to  me  necessary  on  the  argu- 
ment about  the  common  law  in  my  ninth  chapter,  and  I  have  tried 
also  to  show  that  it  was  not  merely  to  prevent  such  a  union  of  Church 
and  State  as  had  led  to  the  persecution  of  the  first  settlers  of  this 
continent  in  their  father  lands,  but  also  to  establish  perfect  religious 
freedom  and  equality^  that  our  Constitution  and  fundamental  laws 
were  framed  exactly  as  we  find  them.  The  reader  will  please  keep  in 
mind  the  seventh,  tenth,  eleventh,  twelfth  and  thirteenth  chapters ; 
and,  in  order  that  this  part  of  the  subject  may  be  fully  understood, 
I  repeat  and  amplify  : 

1.  That  there  is  a  sense  in  which  our  institutions  are  founded 
upon  the  common  law,  and  in  which  Christianity  is  a  part  of  the 
common  law;  and  yet  it  does  not  follow  that  our  government  is 
organically  a  Protestant  Christian  government,  and  that  we  may 
make  laws  to  promote  that  religion,  and  thereby,  and  to  that  ex- 
tent, discriminate  and  show  favor  to  it,  and  hinder  any  and  all  others. 
It  is  clearly  one  thing  to  speak  of  the  peoples  of  the  United  States 
as  being  Christians  and  Protestants,  meaning  that  a  majority  of  them 
are  so  nominally — that  they  have  been  made  so  by  their  baptism,  and 
have  so  continued  to  be  because  they  have  not  professed  their  con- 
version to  Paganism,  nor  to  the  Hebrew  faith,  nor  to  the  Church  of 
Kome — and  quite  another  thing  to  mean,  or  to  infer  from  this,  that 
the  government  of  the  United  States  is  organically  Christian  and 
Protestant.  This  is  not  true.  If  the  majority  of  the  peoples 
of  the  United  States  are  Protestant  Christians,  they  are  so  not 
from  any  agency  of  their  government.  The  government  did  not 
act  as  their  accoucheur,  nor  baptise  them,  nor  catechise  them,  nor 
confirm  and  admit  them  to  the  communion.  Nor  does  the  govern- 
ment require  any  religious  test  or  make  any  inquisition  into  their 
faith.  The  government  of  the  United  States  wholly  ignores  all  the 
dogmas  and  rites  of  the  churches,  and  of  Christianity.  The  language 
and  opinions  and  doctrines  recognized  in  the  Declaration  and  in  the 
Constitution  sre  such  as  Jews,  Mohammedans,  Catholics  and  Deists 
could  all  receive. 

2.  It  is  then  important  to  distinguish  between  the  popular  teachings 


FORMER   SECTARIAN  STRIFES.  85 

of  the  day  as  to  the  Protestant  Christianity  of  the  United  States,  and 
the  actual  recognition  of  any  such  a  thing  by  the  Constitution  and 
laws,  and  in  doing  this  we  find,  that  in  the  largest  sense  possible, 
religion  is  left  by  our  government  to  be  wholly  an  individual  affair, 
between  each  man  and  his  maker.  It  leaves  the  responsibility  of 
faith  and  piety  where  it  belongs — upon  the  conscience  of  individuals. 
Whether  the  peoples  shall  be  Christians  or  not  is  left  to  themselves, 
and  if  they  elect  so  to  be,  they  must  of  their  own  free  will  support 
their  own  religious  institutions.  Our  government  provides  no  re- 
ligion for  any  one  anywhere,  nor  does  it  undertake  to  teach  any 
religion  either  in  churches  or  school-houses. 

3.  My  friends  all  admit  that  such  was  the  fierceness  of  sectarian 
strife  at  the  time  our  organic  laws  were  framed,  that  no  one  form  of 
Christianity  could  have  been  established ;  but  they  insist,  that  really 
the  meaning  of  the  framers  of  the  Constitution  was  to  recognize  and 
establish  Protestant  Christianity  in  preference  to  Popery,  or  Paganism, 
or  Judaism.  Now,  if  this  was  their  intention,  their  meaning  in  the 
Declaration  and  in  the  Constitution  should  have  been  expressed 
somewhat  in  the  following  style  :  We  are,  and  of  right  ought  to  be, 
a  free,  independent,  Protestant  Christian  people,  and  the  Bible  of 
King  James  is,  and  of  right  ought  to  be,  the  foundation  of  all  our 
institutions,  and  shall  be  acknowledged  as  the  Word  of  God,  and 
Protestant  Christianity  is,  and  shall  be,  a  part  of  the  common  law, 
and  every  thing  contrary  to,  or  inconsistent  with  these  declarations, 
is  null  and  void.  But  that  the  framers  of  our  Constitution  did  not 
design  to  make  any  such  a  declaration  as  this,  is  perfectly  clear  to  my 
mind  from  the  following  considerations. 

First.  They  were  able,  intelligent,  honest,  and  brave  men.  They 
were  in  every  way  competent  to  have  expressed  themselves  in  this 
style,  if  they  had  intended  to  convey  such  a  meaning.  But  they 
studiously  avoided  saying  anything  of  this  kind.  Nay,  they  have 
said  what  I  regard  as  positively  forbidding  any  such  a  construction 
to  be  put  upon  their  language.  They  did  not  mean,  as  I  have  already 
shown,  to  say  that  they  disbelieved  Christianity,  or  that  they  ignored 
Protestantism,  or  were  in  any  degree  indifferent  to  public  morality 
and  the  piety  of  the  people.  By  no  means.  But  they  did  intend 
to  ignore  wholly  any  legislation  on  the  subject,  except  to  secure  per- 
fect religious  equality  and  freedom. 

Secojidly.  If  they  had  meant  to  recognize  Protestant  Christianity, 
and  show  it  favor,  why  did  they  not  adopt  the  views  of  the  Mecklen- 
berg  memorialist  to  which  I  have  already  referred  ?  They  were,  then, 
not  ignorant  of  the  subject,  nor  could  they  have  failed  to  attend  to  it 
through  forgetfulness. 

Thirdly.  It  is  to  be  remembered  that  one  of  the  grievances 
alledged  against  Great  Britain,  was  the  liberty  allowed  to  the  Catho- 
lics of  Canada.  It  is  also  well  known  that  in  the  New  England 
States,  our  Pilgrim  fathers  were  not  altogether  free  from  intolerance. 
It  could  not  be  expected  that  in  fleeing  to  the  wilderness  from  perse- 


S6  ■  THE    BIBLE   AND  POLITICS. 

cution,  for  freedom,  to  worship  God,  they  could  all  at  once  emanci- 
pate themselves  from  the  thraldom  of  the  old  world.  They  were  not 
able  to  come  at  once  into  the  full  light  of  perfect  religious  liberty. 
The  same  is  substantially  true  of  the  colony  of  Virginia.  How  is  it 
then  that  our  fathers  did  not  recognize  any  religion  in  the  formation  of 
our  government  ?  Why  did  they  establish  as  a  fundamental  principle, 
perfect  religious  liberty?  I  answer,  because  they  could  not  agree  to 
do  any  thing  else.  The  elements  were  many,  and  exceedingly 
antagonistic.  The  Catholics  of  Maryland;  the  Quakers  of  Pennsyl- 
vania ;  the  Independents  of  New  England  ;  the  Dutch  Calvinists  of 
New  York  ;  the  Huguenots  of  South  Carolina ;  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land, in  Virginia;  and  the  Scotch  and  Irish  Presbyterians  of  the 
Middle  and  Southern  States — out  of  such  a  chaos,  no  harmony  could 
be  made.  So  exceedingly  jealous  were  the  various  sects  and 
churches,  that  even  silence  was  not  enough,  and  hence  the  amend- 
ment that  Congress  should  make  no  law  to  establish  any  religion  or 
to  hinder  its  free  exercise.  It  was  impossible  for  the  framers  of  the 
Constitution  to  have  meant  even  while  they  did  not  express  it,  to 
recognize  Protestant  Christianity  in  preference  to  any  other  form  of 
religion.  Could  this  have  been  their  meaning,  and  the  Catholics 
and  Deists,  and  Quakers,  all  have  remained  silent  at  the  time  ? 

Fourthly.  While  we  rejoice  that  Washington  and  Adams,  and 
Witherspoon,  and  a  host  besides,  were  pious  men,  still,  we  are  not  at 
liberty  to  incorporate  their  creed  and  individual  views  of  Christianity 
into  our  organic  laws.  If  we  are  not  to  go  to  Mr.  Jefferson's  private 
library  for  the  meaning  of  the  Constitution,  neither  are  we  to  visit 
Mr.  Adams'  Puritan  meeting-house,  nor  interpret  it  by  Dr.  Wither- 
spoon's  Presbyterian  catechism  and  sermons,  nor  by  Dr.  Franklin's 
free-thinking  essays,  nor  by  the  Confessional  and  Missal  of  Carroll 
of  Carrolton.  The  private  religious  opinions  and  habits  of  personal 
piety  of  the  signers  of  the  Declaration  and  of  the  framers  of  the 
Constitution,  are  not  the  expositors  of  these  great  State  papers. 

Fijthly.  Foreigners  and  posterity  are  the  best  interpreters  of  a 
man's  works.  And  foreigners  have  always  understood  that  our 
organic  institutions  did  not  recognize  any  religion  at  all.  For  many 
years,  one  of  the  standing  charges  against  us  in  Europe,  was,  that  we 
area  "Godless"  '^Christless  nation" — that  our  "Constitution  had 
no  God."  It  was  in  part  to  answer  such  charges  that  Dr.  D wight  of 
Yale  College,  and  Mr.  John  Adams,  wrote  so  much  on  the  Constitu- 
tion and  the  history  of  the  country  at  the  time.  Mr.  Henri  de 
Courcy  says,  expressly,  that  it  was  owing  to  the  paramount  influ- 
ence of  France  at  the  time,  that  our  fundamental  laws  were  framed 
without  any  recognition  of  religion.  I  have  already  said  that  Mr. 
Paine  and  Voltaire  were  popular  at  the  time  in  the  United  States, 
and  it  will  be  remembered  that  perfect  toleration  in  the  widest  sense 
— absolute  religious  freedom — for  Pagans  as  well  as  all  sorts  of  Chris- 
tian sects,  heretics  and  infidels  of  every  hue  was  the  favorite  theme 
of  both  of  these  writers.     And  I  have  not  a  doubt  myself  but  that 


FRENCH   INFLUENCE.  87 

they  and  their  followers  thought  the  best  way  to  put  an  end  to  Chris- 
tianity in  America,  was  to  disconnect  it  wholly  from  the  State.  They 
regarded  it  as  a  species  of  Priest  and  King  craft,  and  thought  it 
could  not  live,  if  not  supported  by  the  State.  And  in  this,  as 
throughout  the  history  of  the  Religion  of  the  Bible,  God  makes 
the  wrath  of  man  to  praise  him.  The  very  thing  they  wished  done 
for  its  destruction,  has  worked  for  its  greater  glory.  There  is  no 
doubt  in  my  mind  that  our  fathers  were  pervaded  with  Voltaire's 
idea  of  religious  freedom.  So  great  was  the  influence  of  France,  that 
it  was  seriously  feared  for  many  years  by  some  of  the  ablest  men  in 
America,  that  French  Deism  and  Infidelity  would  overrun  our  whole 
country.  It  was  natural  that  France  should  have  a  great  influence 
over  us  at  that  time.  Her  Court  was  the  most  magnificent  in  Europe. 
Her  sovereign  was  the  grand  Monarchque.  Her  scholars  were  at  the 
head  of  the  learning  and  science  of  the  world.  Her  sons,  with  the 
generous  Lafayette  at  their  head,  had  stood  with  our  fathers  on  the 
battle-field,  their  blood  had  mingled  in  the  same  stream,  and  their 
limbs  had  stifi'ened  in  the  same  snows,  and  their  bones  were  moulder- 
ing in  the  same  soldier  grave.  The  ideas  of  toleration,  and  religious 
freedom  that  filled  the  minds  of  our  fathers,  were  those  of  the  philoso- 
phers of  France.  Not  that  our  fathers,  themselves,  were  unbelievers, 
but  that,  without  giving  up  their  own  creed,  they  adopted  the  idea 
of  perfect  freedom  to  others.  The  most  of  them  were  dissenters 
from  established  Churches  at  home.  They  knew,  therefore,  that  their 
Christianity  could  live  without  government  patronage.  They  knew 
by  painful  experience  that  their  faith  could  flourish  not  only  without 
Caesar's  smiles,  but  in  spite  of  his  frowns.  Their  experience  doubt- 
less, made  them  the  more  willing  to  risk  the  existence  and  spread  of 
Christianity  in  America,  without  any  government  patronage.  They 
were  willing  to  put  it  on  "  a  level  with  Mohammedanism  or  Pagan- 
ism." I  cannot  think,  therefore,  that  "this  is  an  impossible"  or 
absurd  idea. 

And,  lastly^  we  have  already  seen  that,  in  our  treaties  with  Tripoli 
and  the  Barbary  States,  while  General  Washington  and  Mr.  Adams 
were  Presidents,  it  is  expressly  stated  that  "  the  government  of  the 
United  States  is  not,  in  any  sense,  founded  on  the  Christian  religion," 
and  that  "  it  has,  in  itself,  no  character  of  enmity  against  the  laws, 
religion  or  tranquillity  of  Musselmen."  This  is  the  interpretation 
put  upon  our  Constitution  and  laws  in  1796  and  in  1805,  and  that, 
too,  by  treaties  which,  with  the  Constitution,  are  "  the  Supreme  law 
of  the  land."  While,  therefore,  we  rejoice  in  the  piety  of  our  fore- 
fathers, we  believe  it  altogether  wrong  to  infer,  from  their  individual 
piety,  that  they  made  laws  that  were  intended  to  enable  us  to  legis- 
late for  Protestant  Christianity  in  preference  to  any  other  religion. 
This  is  just  what,  it  seems  to  me,  the  founders  of  the  Republic  did 
not  do  themselves,  nor  intend  that  we  should  ever  do. 

It  may  be  true,  then,  that  Connecticut  did,  by  explicit  laws,  in 
1656  and  1830,  take  care  that  all  their  children  and  apprentices 


88  THE   BIBLE    AND    POLITICS. 

should  be  educated  to  be  able  to  read  the  Sacred  Scriptures  in 
the  English  tongue ;  and,  in  some  competent  measure,  to  understand 
the  main  grounds  and  principles  of  the  Christian  religion,  necessary 
to  salvation ;  and  it  may  be  that  Connecticut  schools  and  the  Eible 
were  "  one  and  inseparable,''  and  that  the  object  of  the  Connecticut 
school  system  may  have  been  expressly  "  to  teach  the  Bible,''  and  so 
of  Massachusetts  and  of  some  other  States ;  but  all  this  has  nothing 
to  do  with  the  Public  School  system  of  our  day.  There  were  many 
laws  in  Connecticut  that  we  do  not  wish  to  import  to  the  Pacific. 

In  almost  all,  perhaps  all  of  the  colonies,  religion  was  established 
by  law.  This  did  our  fathers.  Are  we  to  do  the  same  ?  Our  fathers, 
in  Europe,  for  a  much  longer  time,  have  had  to  pay  taxes  to  support 
hierarchies  and  monarchies.  Ought  we  to  do  so  ?  Some  of  our 
fathers  hanged  witches,  drove  out  Quakers,  and  exiled  Baptists,  and 
persecuted  one  another  to  the  stake.     Are  we  to  do  so  in  California  ? 

The  authority  of  the  magistrate  over  the  conscience  was  so  tho- 
roughly a  part  of  the  education  of  our  fathers,  although  they  had  the 
Bible  in  their  schools,  that  it  was  only  after  many,  many  struggles, 
and  through  many  long,  and  arduous,  and  eloquent  debates,  that  it 
was  expelled  from  our  organic  laws  and  from  our  institutions;  and 
to  no  man,  probably,  does  America  owe  her  religious  freedom  more  than 
to  Roger  Williams,  the  father  of  Rhode  Island.  In  every  country 
where  the  doctrines  of  the  Reformation  prevailed,  the  Church  was 
made  subordinate  to  the  civil  power,  and,  to  a  great  degree,  this  is 
so  to  the  present  day.  I  do  not  know  of  any  confession  of  faith  or 
creed,  framed  by  any  of  the  great  Reformers,  which  does  not  give  to 
the  civil  magistrate  a  coercive  power  in  religion.  The  history  of  the 
persecutions  of  Narragansett  Bay  and  of  Virginia,  is  a  painful  exem- 
plification of  the  principles  the  early  colonists  of  America  had  learned 
from  the  early  Reformers,  who  had  been  taught  by  the  Church  of 
Rome.  The  burden  of  their  song  always  was,  that,  at  last,  the  magis- 
trate must  exert  his  authority  to  convert  heretics  and  dissenters. 
^*  Penal  laws,  the  ratio  ultima  of  divines,  were  their  most  convincing 
arguments — their  Achilles."  See  Bayle's  Die,  Anab.  And  I  be- 
lieve it  will  be  found  that  the  Baptists  were  the  first  expounders  of 
"  absolute  liberty,  just  and  true  liberty,  equal  and  impartial  liberty,'^ 
as  the  immortal  John  Locke  has  expressed  it.  It  is,  at  least,  perfectly 
plain,  that  the  piety  of  most  of  the  early  settlers  of  this  continent  was 
not  the  product  of  legislative  favors,  but  in  spite  of  them.  What,  then, 
is  the  state  of  the  argument  from  the  practice  of  our  fathers  ?  Why,  if 
they  have  done  wrong  for  years  in  oppressing  Quakers,  Israelites  and 
Catholics,  by  taxing  them  to  support  schools  for  the  teaching  of  their 
own  religion,  it  is  high  time  we  should  be  more  liberal  and  just.  "  If  a 
man  has  sinned,  let  him  repent,  and  do  so  no  more."  And  as  to  the 
compulsory  use  of  the  Bible  in  the  Public  Schools,  what  can  we  learn 
from  our  fathers  for  the  last  two  hundred  years?  Why,  we  must 
remember  this,  that  our  Public  School  system  is  not  yet  fifty  years 
old,  and  that  the  schools  of  our  fathers,  previous  to  the  present  Pub- 


OUR  fathers'  schools.  89 

lie  School  laws,  were  properly  parochial  or  denominational  schools. 
The  school-house  was  built  hard  by  the  meeting-house  or  church,  and 
was  in  charge  of  the  head  men  of  the  church.  The  parish  and  the 
school-district  were  identical.  The  same  presbytery  or  council  that 
instituted  the  pastor,  appointed  also  the  teacher,  and  the  same  pro- 
prietors that  furnished  the  manse  and  the  globe,  provided  the  school- 
master with  his  house  and  his  garden.  With  a  few  local  changes  or 
differences,  this  was  the  school  system  of  our  fathers.  In  such  a 
parish  school  the  head  boy  might  be  required  to  say  grace  over  the 
dinners  of  the  whole  school  at  noon,  and  the  catechism  be  recited 
before  the  dismission  in  the  evening,  and  the  Holy  Bible  be  a  text- 
book. In  these  olden  times,  the  people  of  such  districts  were  not 
much  traveled  or  mixed  up.  They  were  nearly  all  one  mind  as  to 
the  Catechism,  the  Bible  and  Sunday.  There  was  but  little,  if  any, 
dissent  as  to  the  usages  of  the  school.  If  the  Episcopalians  of  Vir- 
ginia have  driven  out  all  Presbyterians,  Puritans  and  Baptists,  or 
prevented  them  from  settling  in  a  parish,  then  they  may  have  a  dis- 
trict school  and  teach  the  Prayer  Book.  If  the  Puritans  have 
hanged  the  witches  and  exiled  the  Baptist  Williams,  why  may  they 
not  have  a  school,  hard  by  the  meeting-house,  in  which  the  whole 
Saybrook  Platform  shall  be  taught;  and  if  the  Presbyterians  have 
rid  themselves  of  all  who  do  not  believe  in  Calvin  and  Knox,  why 
may  they  not  teach  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith  ?  The 
schools  of  our  fathers,  "  of  the  last  two  hundred  years,"  were  sub- 
stantially parish  schools,  in  which  there  was  so  little  difference  of 
religious  opinion,  that  the  Bible  and  Catechism  could  be  taught 
without  any  serious  objection.  Our  times  and  circumstances  are 
wholly  different.  Our  Public  Schools  are  State  institutions.  Their 
Superintendent  is  elected  by  the  whole  State.  They  are  supported 
by  taxes  from  all  sorts  of  citizens.  There  is  no  joint  management 
of  them  by  the  churches  and  by  the  magistrates.  Their  control  is 
wholly  without  the  parochial  governments  of  any  or  all  the  churches. 
They  are  altogether  on  a  different  system.  They  are  our  National 
Schools,  and  should  be  conducted  on  the  principles  of  the  Federal 
Government,  as  to  religion.  There  was  but  little  difference  in  the 
schools  of  our  colonies  and  of  the  early  days  of  our  States.  The 
district  schools  of  Maryland  were  Catholic  parish  schools,  and  so  of 
the  Dutch,  and  the  Quakers,  and  the  Presbyterians.  The  same  idea 
of  proscription  and  of  preventing  dissent,  and  of  preserving  perfect 
religious  unity  and  conformity,  pervaded,  to  some  extent,  all  the 
colonies,  from  Massachusetts  to  Florida.  In  the  New  England 
States,  no  one  was  admitted  to  the  freedom  of  the  body  politic  who 
was  not  a  member  of  the  churches  within  their  limits,  and  their  idea 
of  a  Republic  was,  that  it  should  be  after  the  Jewish  model,  in  which 
the  laws  of  Moses  should  constitute  the  rules  of  civil  life.  And  yet, 
if  Moses  himself  had  lived  among  them,  they  woidd  not  have  allowed, 
him  to  he  a  citizen.  They  admitted  of  no  dissent.  The  popular 
cry,  therefore,  that  we  owe  this  proscription  to  "  a  foreign  power, 


90  '  THE   BIBLE  AND   POLITICS. 

which  never  had  the  Bible  in  its  own  land,"  and  that,  if  we  do  not 
compel  the  use  of  our  Bible  in  our  Public  Schools,  we  are  committing  a 
great  outrage  on  the  memory  of  our  fathers,  is  altogether  misplaced, 
or  else  it  is  a  two-edged  sword  that  I  do  not  wish  to  use,  either 
against  the  opposers  of  my  religion,  nor  in  my  own  defense.  There 
is  nothing  in  the  laws  made  for  us  by  our  fathers  that  authorizes  ua 
to  compel,  by  law,  the  use  of  sectarian  books  in  our  Public  Schools ; 
and  as,  since  the  days  of  our  fathers,  the  Public  School  system  has 
undergone  a  radical  change,  their  example  is  not  a  binding  precedent 
for  us.  Let  us  thank  God  for  their  faith  and  piety,  and  for  the  patri- 
mony of  civil  and  religious  liberty,  which  they  have  bequeathed  to 
us,  and,  like  them,  let  us  teach  our  religion  to  our  children  in 
our  families,  and  in  our  church-schools,  and  in  our  great  congre- 
gations. Let  us  use  the  Bible  and  the  Catechism  as  they  used 
them,  but  let  us  so  use  them  as  to  do  no  violence  to  the  rights 
of  our  neighbors.  And,  in  pressing  this  argument,  we  should  re- 
member that  there  were  other  fathers  besides  the  Prilgrim  Fathers, 
who  settled  this  continent,  and  that  their  children  may  also  have 
some  affectionate  tenacious  memories.  Have  not  the  peoples  of  this 
Coast  had  many  fathers  after  the  flesh?  Who,  then,  are  the  fathers 
we  must  follow  ?  Nor  is  the  usage  of  the  States  uniform  on  this  sub- 
ject. Very  far  from  it.  In  some  of  the  largest  States  the  Bible  is 
not  used  at  all ;  and  in  some  of  the  largest  cities  both  versions,  the 
Protestant  and  Catholic,  are  used. 


XV. 

Our  Translation  Sectarian. 

"  Veritas  odium  parit — Truth  often  causes  hatred." — Latiyi  Proverb. 

It  is  conceded  on  all  sides  that  much  of  the  merit  of  this  contro- 
versy rests  on  the  character  of  our  Protestant  Bible.  And  the  main 
question  is,  whether  it  is  sectarian  or  not.  Those  who  urge  its  com- 
pulsory use  say  it  is  not.  But  in  assuming  that  our  Bible  is  not 
sectarian  and  that  it  is  the  best  and  only  faithful  translation  into 
English,  it  seems  to  me  they  assume  almost  everything  in  dispute. 
The  question  is  not  as  to  whether  the  original  scriptures  are  sectarian, 
but  as  to  our  version.  And  the  real  question  here  is  not  as  to  the 
excellence  or  faithfulness  of  our  version  as  compared  with  any  other. 
This  is  a  controversy  our  government  has  not  recognized.  Nor  do 
I  believe  it  can  do  so.  It  knows  no  Bible.  Its  ofl&cers  from  the 
highest  to  the  lowest  may  be  elected,  enter  upon  and  perform  all  their 
official  duties  without  the  use  of  a  Bible,  or  even  the  acknowledg- 
ment of  the  Christian  religion. 

Now  what  is  a  sectarian  book?     The  term  "sect'^  we  are  told 


WHO  ARE  SECTARIANS.  91 

means  ''cut  off/'  ''separated  from  the  main  body.''  In  ecclesiastical 
history  it  means  a  party  "cut  off"  from  another  body  by  or  on  ac- 
count of  some  peculiarity  of  creed,  and  being  the  minority,  this  party 
are  heretics,  and  the  majority  Orthodox  or  Catholics,  The  term  sect, 
or  heretic  has  then  no  terrors  for  me.  These  terms  originally  had  no 
evil  meaning  in  them.  The  Greek  word  for  heretic,  signifies  Ichoose^ 
and  was  applied  to  one  that  thought  for  himself  even  if  he  was 
obliged  to  differ  from  others.  In  Catholic  countries  all  who  do  not 
believe  in  the  church  of  Rome  are  called  heretics,  just  as  in  England, 
all  who  do  not  belong  to  the  established  church  are  dissenters,  which 
is  only  a  little  more  polite  way  of  pronouncing  the  word  heretics. 
We  have  only  to  find  a  majority,  and  then  the  minority  are  always 
sects,  heretics,  and  dissenters.  "The  heresy  of  the  Nazarenes." 
"  The  sect  everywhere  spoken  against."  When  Abraham  called  of 
God  went  out  from  Ur  of  the  Chaldees,  he  became  the  leader  of  a 
sect  and  the  father  of  a  chosen  race.  He  was,  then,  the  sectaririst 
in  contradistinction  to  the  rest  of  mankind,  and  the  call  that  separated 
him  from  the  majority  was  a  sectarian  call.  In  relation  to  the 
whole  human  race,  all  Christians  are  sectarians,  "  cut  off,"  "  sepa- 
rated," by  belief,  from  the  largest  half.  And  in  relation  to  Christen- 
dom, all  Protestants  are  sectarians,  a  smaller  half  or  part  of  the 
Christian  world.  Then,  both  Protestants  and  Catholics,  and  so  also 
Heretics,  Pagans,  Mohammedans,  Hindoos  and  Budhists,  are  "  cut 
off"  and  cut  up  into  sects.  There  is  no  end  to  this  cutting  off 
and  cutting  up.  Since  the  diet  of  Spires,  I  had  supposed  it  was  the 
distinctive  glory  of  Protestants  that  they  were  a  sect,  having  protested 
themselves  out  of  and  cut  themselves  away  from  the  Papal  Church. 
And  so,  also,  it  seems  to  me  their  distinctive  translation  of  the  Holy 
Scriptures  is  just  as  much  a  sectarian  book  as  the  Protest  of  Spires 
itself,  or  the  articles  of  the  Synod  of  Dort,  or  of  the  Church  of 
England.  Now,  there  was  a  time  when  the  Original  Scriptures,  the 
Hebrew  Bible,  was  in  a  strict  sense  Abraham's  sectarian  book,  teach- 
ing his  peculiar  doctrines  and  rites  in  contradistinction  to  the  heathen; 
and  the  same  thing  is  true  of  the  Greek  New  Testament  in  reference 
to  the  Pagans  of  the  early  ages.  And  so,  now,  our  Bible  is  a  secta- 
rian book  in  contradistinction  to  the  Koran,  and  just  as  truly  so  also 
in  reference  to  the  Bible  of  the  Israelites,  and  of  the  Roman  Catho- 
lics. Our  Bible  has  more  than  the  Hebrew's,  but  less  than  the  Catho- 
lic's. Our  Bible  may  be  in  every  iota  faithful  to  the  original,  and 
yet  it  is  essentially  Protestant,  as  compared  with  the  Holy  Books  of 
the  Israelites,  and  also  as  compared  with  the  Catholic's  Bible.  The 
Catholic  has  the  Apocrypha,  which  we  have  not,  and  his  translation 
differs  in  many  places  from  ours ;  and,  in  the  laws  of  our  country, 
no  difference  is  known  as  to  these  versions,  they  are  all  wholly 
ignored.  It  is,  then,  simply  begging  the  whole  question  to  say,  that 
our  Bible  is  the  faithful  translation,  and  must,  as  the  Word  of  God, 
be  put  into  our  Public  Schools.  I  believe  in  the  superiority  of  our 
translation,  and  wish  no  other,  but  I  deny  that  we  have  a  constitu- 


92  THE   BIBLE   AND   POLITICS. 

tional  right  to  assume,  in  this  controversy,  that  our  translation  is  the 
Word  of  God  and  that  the  Catholic's  is  not.  If  our  version  were  sub- 
jected to  the  vote  of  Christendom,  a  very  large  majority  would  decide 
that  it  is  a  sectarian  version,  just  as  we  consider  the  Douay;  and  a 
majority  of  Christendom  would  vote  in  favor  of  the  Douay  and 
against  ours.  The  Prussian  Government  has  declared  the  Lutheran 
version  to  be  sectarian,  (and  ours  is  not  less  sectarian  than  Luther's,) 
by  requiring  it  to  be  used  by  the  Protestant  children,  and  the  Catholic 
version  by  the  Catholics,  and  the  Old  Testament  by  the  Hebrews. 
The  same  course  is  pursued  in  Baltimore  and  other  places. 

Now,  what  is  a  sectarian  book  ?  Is  it  not  one  that  teaches  the  pe- 
culiar doctrine,  policy  and  forms  of  worship  that  distinguish  a  denomi- 
nation ?  And  is  not  this  just  what  we,  Protestants,  say  our  Bible 
teaches,  and  are  we  not  so  confident  of  this,  that  we  are  willing  to  give 
up  all  comments  and  leave  out  altogether  the  traditions  of  the  fathers? 
It  may  be  true,  that  in  all  this  it  is  faithful  to  the  original,  but  that 
is  not  the  question.  It  is  our  version  and  the  use  of  it  that  distin- 
guishes us  as  Protestants,  and  this  use  makes  it  a  sectarian  book.  Why, 
there  was  a  time  when  a  hat  made  a  Quaker,  and  a  coat  a  Methodist. 
They  were  sectarian  badges.  And  was  not  our  translation  made  by 
the  special  command  of  a  Protestant  King  ?  Was  it  not  prepared 
and  published  professedly  as  "an  antidote  to  Popery;'^  and  is  it  not 
for  this  very  reason,  that  Protestant  Bible  societies  and  missionaries 
are  so  anxious  to  get  their  translations  into  Catholic  countries  ?  I 
confess,  I  am  amazed  that  it  has  ever  been  denied  that  our  English 
Bible  is  not  Protestant  in  opposition  to  Romanism,  and  in  that  sense 
sectarian.  And  yet  we  ask  the  Catholic  to  allow  us  to  teach  it  by 
law  to  his  child.  Now,  so  far  as  our  organic  laws  are  concerned,  the 
Catholics  have  just  as  much  right  to  call  their  version,  the  Word  of 
God,  and  to  force  upon  us  prayers  to  the  Virgin  Mary  and  the  whole 
Missal,  as  we  have  to  call  our  version  the  Word  of  God  and  force  its 
reading  upon  them.  Nor  does  it  help  the  matter  to  say,  that  our  ver- 
sion was  begun  before  the  Reformation  and  was  in  part  the  work  of 
Wickliffe,  who  was  a  Catholic,  for  we  all  know  that  the  Catholic 
Church  never  approved  of  his  labors.  Nor  is  it  true  that  it  cannot 
be  sectarian,  because  it  was  made  before  there  were  any  sects ;  for  it 
was  made  by  sectarian  divines,  and  by  the  special  command  of  a 
sectarian  King,  and  for  an  avowedly  sectarian  purpose.  Did  a  single 
Catholic  help  to  make  our  translation  ?  Was  it  not  for  the  purpose 
of  helping  forward  the  Reformation  from  Romanism  that  it  was 
made  ?  And  is  it  not  the  settled  conviction  and  boast  of  the  Pro- 
testant world,  that  they  owe  their  great  strength  to  this  very  transla- 
tion ?  Is  it  not  a  much  cherished  saying  among  us,  "The  Bible 
only;"  "The  Bible,  the  whole  Bible,  and  nothing  but  the  Bible." 
Is  not  Chillingworth's  celebrated  declaration  an  article  of  our  faith, 
^^  The  Bible  is  the  religion  of  Protestants?"  It  is  quite  enough, 
without  any  reference  to  the  merits  of  the  translation,  to  make  us 
call  it  a  sectarian  Protestant  book;  that  we,  as  Protestants,  are  distin- 


OUR  VERSION   SECTARIAN.  9S 

guished  for  its  use,  and  hope  to  make  others  Protestants  by  inducing 
them  to  use  it.     I  am  for  full-faced  honesty  on  this  question. 

But,  I  am  told,  our  Bible  cannot  be  a  sectarian  book,  because 
*^  sectarian  books  are  of  human  origin/'  but  our  translation  is  just 
this  and  nothing  else.  Some  Catholics  believe  that  the  Vulgate 
translation  was  made  by  inspiration,  but  I  have  never  yet  heard  of 
any  Protestants  who  believed  that  our  translation  was  made  by  the 
Holy  Ghost.  No.  It  was  made  by  uninspired,  erring  men.  It  was 
not  written  as  were  the  original  Scriptures,  by  holy  men  of  God 
moved  thereto  by  the  Holy  Spirit. 

I  believe,  with  the  learned  Selden,  that  our  translation  is  the  best 
ever  made,  but  still  so  far  as  the  Presbyterian  Church  is  concerned, 
the  English  version  is  not  the  standard  of  last  appeal,  but  the  orig- 
inal Hebrew  and  Greek.  And  so  far  as  our  organic  laws  can  recog- 
nize such  subjects,  has  not  the  Deist  or  the  Israelite  a  right  to  call 
our  Bible  a  sectarian  book  ;  and  has  not  the  Catholic  just  as  much 
right  to  call  our  version  sectarian  as  we  have  to  call  his  a  Romish 
book  ?  It  is  strange  to  me,  that  my  friends  can  say  "  The  country  is 
Protestant,  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  the  Constitution  and 
the  government  are  all  Protestant,''  and  were  made  so  by  our  Bible, 
and  yet  our  Bible  is  not  sectarian !  They  even  ask  with  horror, "  Is 
God  a  sectary?  Is  His  word  to  be  limited  to  a  sect?"  I  answer  no. 
God  is  the  Father  of  all  men,  and  his  Word  is  for  all  men,  and  yet 
there  are  many  different  views  of  the  Divine  character  and  many  pro- 
fessed revelations  of  His  will,  and  several  different  and  contradictory- 
versions  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  and  the  differences  of  these  versions 
are  sectarian  differences.  The  Bible  reveals  the  will  of  God  for 
our  salvation,  and  all  men  are  invited  to  come  and  drink  of  the 
water  of  life  freely.  It  is  adopted  to  man's  spiritual  wants.  But 
has  our  government  ever  said,  or  have  we  a  right  to  claim  that 
it  ought  to  decide  that  these  predicates  belong  to  our  version,  and 
not  equally  to  the  Catholics?  I  think  not.  The  Word  of  God 
is  his  gift — ^a  blessed  ''  heritage  to  poor  suffering  humanity,"  but  when 
we  come  to  translate  it  and  are  divided  into  sects  and  churches, 
which  are  distinguished  by  using  different  translations,  then  and 
for  the  reason  of  this  distinctive  use,  if  for  no  other,  these  trans- 
lations are  all  sectarian.  The  Messiah  is  God's  greatest  gift,  yet 
some  deny  him,  and  are  thereby  distinguished  as  religionists  from 
those  who  believe  in  him ;  and  among  those  who  believe  that  Jesus 
is  Christ,  there  are  many  different  views  held  as  to  his  character,  me- 
diation and  kingdom,  and  these  views  constitute  the  essential  differ- 
ences of  many  conflicting  sects.  And  the  summary  of  what  a  Trini- 
tarian or  a  Unitarian,  a  Methodist  or  Congregationalist,  believes  6on- 
cerning  Christ  is  sectarian.  And  precisely  so  the  translation  of  the 
Holy  Scriptures  that  is  prepared  for  or  is  used  by  any  number  of  pro- 
fessing Christians,  and  rejected  by  another  part,  especially  if  the  lat- 
ter part  be  a  majority,  is  a  sectarian  book.  Will  any  one  deny  that 
the   Baptist  version  in  which  baptize  is  rendered    immerse  is  not 


94  THE   BIBLE   AND    POLITICS. 

a  sectarian  translation  ?  And  yet  they  tell  us  that  this  is  the  orig- 
inal, and  that  tbeir  version  is  the  Word  of  Grod.  Must  we  therefore 
have  it  in  our  Public  Schools  ?  To  say  then  that  our  Bible  is  not 
sectarian  because  it  is  the  Word  of  God  and  teaches  the  true  reli- 
gion may  be  a  very  comfortable  assurance  to  us,  but  is  it  a  fair  ar- 
gument with  the  Catholic,  or  a  logical  answer  to  his  scruples  of  con- 
science when  you  wish  to  compel  his  child  to  use  it  ? 

Our  Creator  is  not  a  "sectary,"  nor  is  His  revealed  will  sectarian 
in  itself,  but  our  understandings,  interpretations  and  readings  of  His 
character  and  will  are  sectarian,  Plato's  laws  translated  are  in  a 
measure  Plato's  laws  ;  but  if  philosophers  were  divided  into  two  great 
Platonic  schools,  and  each  school  had  its  own  translation  and  would 
not  use  the  other,  then,  although  these  translations  might  in  the  main 
be  faithful  to  the  original,  or  if  one  was  much  better  than  the  other, 
yet  both  would  be  sectarian ;  and  if  the  government  in  teaching  its 
youth  selects  one,  then  and  in  that  it  prefers  it  to  the  other,  and 
cannot  be  said  to  treat  both  alike.  Now,  instead  of  Plato's  laws  and 
two  philosophic  sects,  just  substitute  ^he  Bible  and  Catholics  and 
Protestants,  and  the  case  is  parallel.  It  is  impossible  for  a  syllable 
of  legislation  to  be  uttered  for  either  version,  without  violating  our 
radical  principle  of  perfect  equality  and  preference  to  none.  Our 
blessed  Creator  is  not  sectarian,  yet  the  different  views  that  mankind 
have  of  His  character  and  of  the  revelation  He  has  made,  and  of  the 
worship  He  requires,  divides  our  race  into  sects.  It  is  just  this  that 
makes  the  difference  of  all  the  religions  that  are  in  the  world.  Surely, 
then,  it  is  not  irreverent  to  take  the  same  view  of  His  revealed  will. 
Our  first  parents  were  not  sectarians  as  to  races,  and  yet  the  African 
Eve  is  black,  the  Malay's  copper,  and  the  Caucasian's  white )  and 
each  contends  that  his  picture  is  faithful  to  the  original. 

We  have  found  above  that  there  is  a  legitimate  sense  in  which  even 
the  original  Scriptures  are  sectarian;  but  we  are  speaking  of  our 
translation,  and  must  believe  that  we  should  honestly  avow  it  to  be 
Protestant.  Nor  does  this  in  any  way  diminish  our  reverence  for  it, 
but  greatly  increases  our  faith  in  it.  Our  blessed  Lord  himself  is 
variously  apprehended  by  different  denominations,  and  these  appre- 
hensions of  His  character  are  sectarian.  Suppose  we  have  the  Gospel  of 
John  illustrated  with  a  picture  of  John  the  Baptist  immersing  Jesus  in 
the  Jordan,  or  baptizing  him  by  pouring,  would  not  both  of  these  be  sec- 
tarian copies,  although  the  memoir  should  be  the  same,  and  the  lines 
of  the  picture  and  the  features  of  his  face  the  same  ?  I  fancy  it  would 
be  decided  at  once  that  New  Testaments  with  such  pictures  would  be 
sectarian  books.  Suppose  there  was  a  picture  of  Christ  in  the  Church 
of  the  Holy  Sepulchre  in  Jerusalem,  and  that  Catholics  had  a  copy 
and  Protestants  had  another  copy,  and  that  for  the  most  part  they 
were  just  alike  ;  but  that  still  there  was  such  a  difference,  that  Catho- 
lics would  not  look  at  the  Protestants',  and  Protestants  would  not 
look  at  the  Catholics',  and  that  for  several  centuries  there  had  been 
great  strife  between  them  about  their  pictures,  as  to  which  was  the 


THE  TWO   RIVAL   PICTURES.  95 

best,  and  as  to  the  proper  manner  of  exhibiting  them,  and  that  these 
views  and  distinctive  uses  of  their  respective  pictures  constituted 
denomina,tional  diflferences ; — and  would  it  not  be  conceded  that  these 
pictures  are  sectarian  ?  And  if  the  government  should  interfere  and 
say  the  Catholic  picture  is  the  best,  and  shall  be  hung  up  in  all  the 
Public  Schools,  and  should  levy  taxes  upon  Protestants  to  build 
schools  to  put  this  picture  in,  and  to  pay  teachers  to  show  it,  what 
would  my  friends  say  to  this  ?  Nor  have  I  any  comfort  for  them, 
except  that  of  the  dying  eagle,  whose  agony  was  only  the  keener 
from  discovering  that  the  arrow  that  pierced  him  was  winged  with 
his  own  feathers.  The  only  safety  is  keeping  the  question  out  of  the 
hands  of  the  Government.  We  ought  not, to  ask  it  to  decide  the 
controversy  as  to  whether  our  picture  is  the  best  copy  of  the  original 
or  not,  nor  to  show  any  partiality  to  it.  And  just  so  it  is  with  the 
different  versions.  They  may  or  may  not  agree  in  essentials,  but 
they  all  profess  to  be  faithful  to  the  original,  and  their  several  adhe- 
rents believe  the  version  they  use  to  be  the  Word  of  God  ;  and,  it  is 
just  here — just  because  our  civil  authorities  cannot  themselves  decide, 
nor  call  a  council  of  the  churches  to  decide  between  translations,  that 
I  do  not  see  how  it  is  possible  for  the  State  to  put  any  Bible  by  law 
into  the  schools.  It  cannot  decide  which  translation  is  the  Word  of 
God.  Nor  is  this  a  visionary  difficulty.  It  is  well  known  that  the  ques- 
tion of  revising  our  received  translation  well  nigh  caused  the  dissolution 
last  year  of  the  American  Bible  Society.  And  it  is  also  well  known 
that  British  Christians  are  divided  on  this  subject,  and  that  the  Bap- 
tists of  this  country  are  making  a  new  translation.  And  the  Scrip- 
tures used  in  the  Episcopalian  Prayer  Book  are  not  the  same  in  many 
texts  that  we  have  in  our  Bibles.  They  use  a  different  rendering  of 
many  verses,  and  in  the  communion  service  quote  from  the  Apo- 
cryphal books  apparently  with  the  same  reverence  with  which  they 
use  any  of  the  canonical  books.  The  Episcopalian  rendering  of  the 
Decalogue  is  not  after  our  Bible,  and  the  Ten  Commandments  in  our 
version  is  essentially  different  from  the  Douay. 

Now,  I  am  not  here  saying  who  is  right  or  who  is  wrong.  I  am 
not  here  passing  sentence  upon  any  body  ;  but  I  ask  you  my  fellow 
citizens  to  look  at  the  practical  workings  of  any  statutes  that  shall 
compel  the  use  of  the  Bible  in  our  schools.  Practically,  the  school 
directors  would  have  to  become  a  high  court  of  translations  and  make 
a  choice  between  the  Catholic  and  the  Protestant,  and  between  the 
Baptist  and  the  Pedo-baptist,  and  between  the  rendering  used  in 
King  James'  Bible  and  the  Episcopalian  prayer  book,  not  to  say  any- 
thing of  many  other  versions.  I  repeat  again,  and  again,  according  to 
the  organic  laws  of  our  county,  the  government  cannot  decide  such 
a  controversy.  It  must  adopt  and  equally  favor  all  versions,  all 
Bibles,  and  even  the  Koran,  or  it  must  ignore  them  all,  and  protect 
each  religionist  in  the  free  exercise  of  his  own  religious  opinions,  but 
promote  or  favor  none.  The  moment  the  law  decides  for  this  or  that 
translation,  that  moment  the  principles  of  perfect  religious  equality 
and  freedom  are  violated. 


96  THE   BIBLE   AND   POLITICS. 

But  I  am  all  wrong  say  my  friends,  "for  the  word  of  God  is  no 
more  sectarian  than  the  atmosphere  that  is  omnipotent,  translucent 
and  vital."  But,  is  there  not  both  oxygen  and  nitrogen  in  the  air  ? 
And  is  it  not  salubrious,  or  unhealthy,  according  to  the  locality  or 
medium  ?  The  atmosphere  of  the  hospital  is  not  like  that  of  a  flower 
garden.  The  Word  of  Grod  is  not  sectarian,  as  it  came  from  the  eter- 
nal mind,  but  as  soon  as  it  is  touched  and  apprehended  by  a  sectary, 
and  in  the  degree  that  it  is  adopted  by  him  in  a  sense  different  from 
that  put  upon  it  by  others,  in  that  same  measure,  does  his  apprehen- 
sion or  rendering  of  it  become  sectarian.  The  fountains  of  the  water, 
seen  in  Saint  Ambrose's  angelic  vision,  ^^was  sweet  and  good,'^  but 
when  the  water  unchanged,  was  poured  into  "  six  vases  of  crystal,  in 
every  case,  it  put  on  the  figure  of  the  vase." 

As  then  our  government  cannot  know  me  as  a  Protestant,  nor  my 
neighbor  as  a  Catholic,  or  as  a  Deist,  Turk  or  Israelite,  so  it  cannot 
interfere  between  us  and  chose  either  of  our  holy  books,  much  less 
can  it  adopt  our  Bible  and  command  it  to  be  read,  and  the  "  entire 
teachings"  and  ^^  facts"  of  our  Protestant  Christianity  to  be  taught 
in  our  Public  Schools.  This  is  to  make  them  sectarian  and  religious 
institutions,  which  cannot  be  done. 


XYI. 


This  Question  a  Political  Shibboleth. 

A  woodman  came  into  the  forest  to  ask  the  trees  for  a  handle  for  his  axe. 
This  modest  request  was  agreed  to,  and  the  plain,  homely  Ash  was  to  furnish 
it.  No  sooner,  however,  was  he  furnished  with  the  handle,  than  he  began 
felling  the  noblest  trees  in  the  wood.  Upon  seeing  which,  the  royal  Oak 
whispered  to  the  lofty  Cedar,  "  The  first  concession  has  lost  all." — JEsoj). 

■  Burke  has  said  that  "  the  cause  of  civil  liberty  and  civil  govern- 
ment gains  as  little  as  that  of  religion  by  the  confusion  of  their  duties. 
Those  priests  who  quit  their  proper  character  to  assume  what  does 
not  belong  to  them,  are,  for  the  most  part,  ignorant  both  of  the 
character  they  leave  and  of  the  character  they  assume.  Wholly  un- 
acquainted with  the  world  in  which  they  are  so  fond  of  meddling, 
and  inexperienced  in  all  its  affairs,  on  which  they  pronounce  with  so 
much  confidence,  they  have  nothing  of  politics  but  the  passions  they 
excite."  Certain  it  is,  that  party  politics  and  the  Bible  have  but 
little  agreement.  Nor  is  it  strange  that  some  of  the  worst  adminis- 
trators of  civil  affairs  have  been  religious  fanatics.  I  believe  the  his- 
tory of  our  race  will  show  that  the  most  cruel  governments  have  been 
in  the  hands  of  the  sacerdotal  orders.     This  is  true  of  Egypt,  Assy- 


PRIESTS   BAD   POLITICIANS.  97 

ria,  Phenicia  and  Gaul — of  India,  ancient  Mexico,  Thibet  and  Tar- 
tary,  and  of  modern  Europe,  when  governed  by  the  Church.  The 
most  enervating  superstition  and  inexorable  despotism  of  antiquity 
were  under  sacerdotal  governments.  It  has  been  under  such  that 
the  human  mind  has  been  the  most  oppressed  and  the  human  race 
the  most  enslaved.  And  as  the  sphere  and  duties  of  civil  govern- 
ment are,  with  us,  separate  and  distinct  from  those  of  the  Church, 
so  I  look  upon  it  as  a  great  evil,  that  any  question  coneerning  the 
Bible  or  religion  should,  in  any  way,  be  made  a  rallying  cry  in  party 
politics.  If  I  have  apprehended  the  true  nature  of  this  controversy, 
it  is  a  sectarian  one,  and  is  rapidly  becoming  a  political  one  also. 

The  New  York  correspondent  of  a  San  Francisco  paper  begins  an 
article  in  this  style : 

''Excluding  the  Bible  from  the  Public  Schools  is  got 
up  to  aid  the  election  of  another  set  of  officers,  whose  duties,  if 
elected,  have  no  more  to  do  with  the  subject  than  with  the  conver- 
sion of  Japan.  *  *  And  yet  the  papers  are  filled  with  inflamma- 
tory appeals,  as  if  a  new  crusade  against  the  Bible  in  the  schools  had 
been  got  up,  in  order  to  place  the  financial  department  of  the  city 
government  in  the  hands  of  a  particular  set  of  individuals.  Any- 
thing that  will  divert  the  attention  of  the  people  from  the  personal 
character  for  honesty  and  fitness  of  the  candidates,  is  countenanced 
and  kept  alive  by  their  supporters.  And  so  the  city  is  misgoverned, 
and  fraud  and  dishonesty  flourish  in  most  of  the  bureaus  of  its  gov- 
ernment.'' 

This  is  the  testimony  of  an  eye-witness  of  things  in  New  York, 
and  of  one  whose  preferences  are  for  the  Bible  in  the  schools.  From 
this  writer  we  learn  there  are  two  hundred  and  seven  public  schools 
in  the  city,  and,  in  all  of  these,  but  twelve  in  which  the  Bible  or 
extracts  from  the  Bible  are  read  and  prayers  off"ered ;  and  yet,  for 
the  sake  of  the  twelve,  this  subject  is  made  the  test  of  parties  at  the 
polls.  Observe,  also,  the  motives  to  which  he  ascribes  this  crusade, 
and  what  he  says  of  the  corruption  and  fraud  of  the  city  govern- 
ment, notwithstanding  the  Bible-reading  and  praying  in  so  many  of 
its  schools.  Yes,  fellow  citizens,  this  is  just  the  serious  part  of  the 
matter,  that  if  you  open  this  subject  for  legislation,  you  carry  the 
Word  of  Grod  to  the  polls,  and  make  it  a  political,  sectarian  and  parti- 
zan  cry.  Do  you  wish  this  ?  I  am  persuaded  you  do  not.  The  duty 
of  our  government  is  to  protect  every  religious  sect  in  the  full  exer- 
cise of  their  several  modes  of  worship,  and  in  the  free  belief  of  their 
own  creed,  but  giving  preference  to  none.  All  are  left  equally  free 
to  support  any  and  whatever  church,  or  none  at  all,  as  they  may 
think  best.  This  is  the  only  way  to  prevent  invidious  distinctions, 
and  to  secure  peace  among  the  various  religious  sects,  and  to  keep 
religion  distinct  from  the  turmoil  of  politics.  For  any  law  that 
should  require  our  Bible  to  be  used  against  the  conscience  of  a 
teacher,  or  of  a  tax-paying  citizen,  would  be  regarded  as  illiberal, 
unjust,  unconstitutional  and  oppressive,  and  contrary  to  our  avowed 
12 


98  THE    BIBLE   AND    POLITICS. 

principles,  and  would,  in  some  measure,  become  a  subject  for  dis- 
cussion among  candidates  and  voters.  It  cannot  be  denied  that 
God's  Holy  Word  has  been  used  as  a  watchword,  and  that  banners 
have  been  borne  in  political  processions  with  the  mottos — "  We 
wont  give  up  our  Bibles  !"  ^'  No  Popery  I'^  "  No  foreign  Jesuits  to 
rule  America  I"  and  the  like.  This  I  consider  an  awful  degradation 
of  God's  Revelation,  and  fraught  with  much  greater  evil  than  all  the 
good  that  can  be  reasonably  expected  from  victory  at  the  polls,  under 
such  influences.  This  is  making  the  Word  of  Life  and  Peace,  a 
firebrand  and  the  torch  of  war.  And  all  this,  too,  in  our  age  of 
progress,  and  of  toleration,  and  of  good  sense  —  in  an  age  when 
Israelites  are  admitted  to  the  Imperial  Parliament,  when  Catholics 
are  emancipated,  and  when  a  Prince  of  Wales  pursues  his  studies 
under  the  shadow  of  the  Vatican,  and  Guy  Fawkes  and  ^'  the  blessed 
martyr  Charles  I,''  and  "  the  most  religious  king  Charles  11/'  are 
blotted  from  the  calendar,  and  Orange-men  and  Ribbon-men  are 
no  more.  Why,  it  almost  seems  to  me,  that,  while  they  are  going 
forward  in  our  great  fatherland,  we  are  going  back  in  America. 

One  reason  why  I  would  not  have  the  Bible  a  political  watchword, 
is  this:  all  political  power  is  fiuctuatiug . 

An  Administration  may  seem  to  be  most  firmly  established ;  and 
yet  in  a  very  few  years,  or  in  a  generation  at  least,  it  may  be  wholly 
changed.  Are  we  then,  every  two  years,  or  every  four  years,  to  have 
a  reHgious  element  cast  into  our  elections?  God  forbid.  And  if  a 
majority  say  this  year,  put  the  Bible  in,  what  if  a  majority  should 
say,  two  years  hence,  take  it  out?  What  if  they  say,  read  King  James' 
Bible  this  year,  and  two  years  hence,  say,  read  the  Douay  Bible,  or 
the  Mormon  Bible  ?  My  fellow  citizens,  I  beg  you  by  every  consola- 
tion of  our  holy  religion,  and  by  every  right  you  possess  as  American 
•  citizens,  let  not  the  men  of  Bethshemesh  touch  or  look  into  the  holy 
ark  of  your  God.  The  moment  you  let  the  civil  authorities  assume 
the  control  of  your  conscience  or  the  religious  education  of  your 
children,  that  moment  you  put  in  peril  every  thing  that  has  made 
America  a  great  and  free  country.  The  allowing  the  Legislature  or 
the  School  Commissioners  to  say  one  word  to  you  about  religion,  or 
to  tell  you  where  and  when  to  read  your  Bible,  which  is  but  the  con- 
crete of  all  you  understand  religion  to  be,  is  the  concession  of  a 
handle  to  the  axe.  The  plain  ash  may  furnish  the  handle  with  which 
both  the  oak  and  the  cedar  are  to  be  felled  to  the  ground.  And  not 
only  so,  but  in  the  proportion  that  your  creed  or  Bible  is  thus  favored 
by  the  government,  in  the  same  degree  is  its  strength,  its  purity 
and  influence,  diminished  or  put  in  peril.  If  religion  has,  as  I  believe, 
more  influence  over  the  American  people  than  over  any  other,  it  is 
mainly  owing  to  the  fact,  that  there  are  fewer  prejudices  against  it 
from  associations  with  political  power.  Such  associations  are  always 
onerous  and  enfeebling.  As  laws,  constitutions,  and  political  parties, 
are  mutable,  and  liable  to  ceaseless  agitations,  and  as  in  the  proportion 
that  any  system  of  religious  faith  may  be  allied  with  them,  so  will  it 


WHY  RELIGION   HAS   FLOURISHED.  99 

be  damaged  by  the  prejudices  attached  to  them  from  age  to  age,  so 
am  I  perfectly  sure  that  the  more  free  our  Protestant  Bible  is  kept 
from  all  dependence  upon  any  institution  that  is  supported  by  the 
State,  so  will  its  power  over  the  American  mind  be  increased,  "  If,'' 
says  De  Tocqueville,  "the  Americans,  who  change  the  head  of  the 
government  once  in  four  years,  who  elect  new  legislators  every  two 
years,  and  renew  the  provincial  officers  every  twelvemonth ;  if  the 
Americans,  who  have  abandoned  the  political  world  to  the  attempts 
of  innovators,  had  not  placed  religion  lohoUy  heyond.  their  reachj 
where  could  it  abide  in  the  ebb  and  flow  of  human  opinions  ?  Where 
would  that  respect  which  belongs  to  it  be  paid,  amidst  the  struggles 
of  faction  ?  and  what  would  become  of  its  immortality  in  the  midst  of 
perpetual  decay  ?"  And  it  is  just  here,  and  for  this  reason,  and  be- 
cause of  the  infinite  preciousness  of  our  faith,  that  I  would  not  for 
my  head,  put  our  Protestant  Bible  into  the  midst  of  the  struggles  of 
faction.  It  is  too  precious  a  thing  to  be  wedded  to  change  or  decay, 
or  to  political  corruption  or  favor.  I  would  to  God  I  could  succeed 
in  opening  the  eyes  of  every  American  citizen  to  the  danger  of 
touching  this  subject  by  the  government.  Let  them  remember 
Adoni-bezek,  who  was  treated  as  he  had  treated  others. 

I  am  sure,  therefore,  that  M.  de  Tocqueville  is  correct,  in  attribu- 
ting the  great  influence  of  religion  in  this  country  mainly  to  the 
separation  of  the  Church  from  the  State.  And  I  am  also  fully  per- 
suaded that  just  in  the  proportion,  that  a  creed  is  supported  by  the 
State,  or  forced  upon  the  minds  of  the  people  by  legislative  enact- 
ments, or  the  decrees  of  town  councils,  just  in  the  same  degree,  its 
vitality  is  diminished.  In  the  old  world,  both  in  Asia  and  Europe, 
where  the  governments  and  religious  systems  are  inseparable,  it  is 
found  that  religion  is  weak  or  strong,  as  the  government  is  feeble  or 
powerful.  And  as  it  is  only  by  a  kind  of  mental  aberration  and  distor- 
tion of  the  moral  sentiments,  that  men  can  live  without  some  kind  of 
religion,  so  it  is  found  that  where  religion  and  politics  are  inseparable, 
there  the  faith  of  the  people  fluctuates  with  the  fortunes  of  the  gov- 
ernment. If  the  court  is  for  Baal,  then  the  people  are  strongly 
inclined  to  vote  for  Baal.  But  where  religion  rests  on  an  enlightened 
conscience  and  a  belief  in  man's  immortality,  and  looks  chiefly  to  a 
future  state,  and  has  no  rewards  to  expect,  nor  penalties  to  fear  from 
the  secular  power,  there  its  empire  may  be  as  deep  as  the  depths  of 
the  human  heart,  as  free  as  human  thought,  as  joyous  as  the  purest 
imagination,  and  aspire  to  universal  endless  dominion. 

It  is  easily  apprehended  how  it  is  impossible  for  the  Church  to 
share  any  temporal  power  with  Caesar,  and  not  partake  of  his  fortunes. 
For  just  in  the  measure  that  any  form  of  worship  or  sect  enjoys  a 
favor  from  the  government,  over  any  other  form  or  sect,  in  that  same 
measure  is  it  the  object  of  prejudice  or  enmity  from  all  other  sects, 
and  citizens  who  believe  in  a  different  form  of  worship.  We  may 
say  this  is  an  abuse  of  a  good  thing,  for  which  we  are  not  responsible, 
for  that  every  good  thing  may  be  abused.  I  answer,  it  is  not  admit- 
12* 


100  THE   BIBLE   AND   POLITICS. 

ted  that  any  such  political  favors  to  Christianity  are  a  good  thing  at 
all.  And  moreover,  this  is  an  abuse  that  we  can  prevent — which  it 
is  our  duty  to  prevent — and  therefore  we  are  justly  accountable  for 
it.  Let  me  explain  my  meaning.  Suppose  we  go  to  the  polls  with 
the  cry,  the  Bible  in  our  JPublic  Schools,  and  that  we  succeed  in 
electing  men,  who  will  compel  its  use  ;  and  do  you  not  see  that  every 
man  who  voted  against  that  ticket  will  transfer  his  political  animosity 
and  prejudices — his  entire  antagonism  to  his  opponents  from  them  to 
their  Bible?  And  will  this  not  array  against  Protestants  all  the  bit- 
ter passions  of  a  politico-religious  strife  ?  This  is  the  inevitable 
result.  And  surely  this  is  not  the  way  to  make  men  love  our  Bible. 
Is  not  a  very  large  portion  of  the  animosity  that  has  so  long  prevailed 
among  Irish  Catholics  toward  Protestants  to  be  ascribed  to  the  oppres- 
sion of  a  Protestant  government  ?  Why  is  all  Europe  filled  with 
loud  complaints  that  there  is  no  living  faith  in  her  Churches?  And 
are  not  the  Churches  the  most  stagnant  and  thoroughly  dead,  just 
where  there  has  been  the  most  law-making  and  tax-paying  to  sustain 
the  rites  and  dogmas  of  the  Church  ?  To  what,  but  to  the  sublime 
coming  out  of  the  Free  Church  of  Scotland,  with  the  great  Chalmers 
at  its  head,  from  the  flesh  pots  of  the  government,  are  we  to  ascribe 
the  greatly  increased  power  of  Christianity  in  North  Britain  ?  It  is 
the  unhesitating  opinion  of  the  ablest  thinkers  in  Europe,  both 
among  believers  and  sceptics,  that  the  want  of  religious  faith  in 
Europe  to  day,  not  the  want  of  nominal  religion,  but  the  want  of  sin- 
cere religious  faith — is  mainly  owing  to  the  close  connection  that 
there  subsists,  and  has  thus  subsisted  for  centuries,  between  politics 
and  religion.  "  The  unbelievers  of  Europe  attack  Christians  as  their 
political  opponents,  rather  than  as  their  religious  adversaries.  They 
hate  the  Christian  religion  as  the  opinion  of  a  party,  much  more  than 
as  an  error  of  belief;  and  they  reject  the  clergy  not  because  they  are 
the  representatives  of  the  Divinity,  but  because  they  are  the  allies  of 
the  government.'^ — De  Tocqueville. 

And  this  is  precisely  what  will  follow — what  must  take  place  if 
any  measure  is  forced  upon  us  by  law  in  relation  to  religious  matters. 
The  Church  of  Grod  was  most  powerful  when  wholly  segregated  from 
Caesar.  It  is  in  Europe  and  Asia  where  Christianity  has  been  the 
most  intimately  united  to  Caesar,  that  it  is  the  most  corrupt.  It  is 
where  the  living  body  of  religion  has  been  bound  to  the  dead  corpse 
of  earthly  powers,  that  its  holy  influence  has  been  most  seriously  put 
in  peril.  We  are  told  that  the  religions  of  India  and  China  are 
tottering  to  their  fall,  because  they  are  identical  with  the  science,  and 
literature,  and  polity  of  those  vast  empires.  If  this  be  so,  then 
according  to  the  same  law,  it  is  only  by  extricating  the  Christian 
religion  from  the  ruins  amid  which  it  lies  in  many  parts  of  the  old 
world — cutting  asunder  the  State  withes  with  which  it  is  bound,  to  let 
it  go  free,  that  it  can  rise  again  to  the  high  position  it  had  when  its 
glad  tidings  sounded  throughout  the  whole  earth  from  apostolic  lips, 
as  the  voice  of  ransom  to  the  world  lying  in  wickedness.     I  know 


WHENCE   OUR   REAL   DANGER.  101 

not  the  plan  by  which  the  great  head  of  the  Church  designs  to  fill 
the  earth  with  the  glory  of  tbe  Lord,  but  it  is  my  belief,  that  it  will 
be  by  reformations  in  the  nominal  Christian  Churches  themselves,  and 
by  the  casting  out  of  the  money-changers  and  sword-drawing  legions 
that  have  been  employed  by  the  unholy  alliance  of  the  Church  and 
the  State,  to  make  men  Christians — not  by  enlightening  the  mind  and 
renewing  the  heart,  but  by  pains  and  penalties,  or  by  rewards.  The 
Christian  Church  can  only  possess  again  the  energy  and  influence  of 
its  earlier  days  by  getting  back  to  its  independence,  and  reliance  only 
upon  Grod.  Surely,  then,  American  Christians  will  not  lay  the  corner 
stone  of  such  a  huge  fabric  as  will  crush  the  life  out  of  them,  by 
allowing  any  interference  in  religious  matters  in  State  institutions. 
Highly  as  I  value  our  Public  Schools,  I  should  prefer  to  have  them 
closed,  and  the  houses  converted  into  manufactories  or  dwellings  for 
the  poor,  and  the  School  fund  expended  in  tilling  our  lands,  rather 
than  that  they  should  become  sectarian  institutions,  and  that  through 
our  Public  School  laws  there  should  grow  up  a  reunion  of  the  Church 
and  the  State.  Nor  have  I  any  sympathy  for  the  Jeremiads  that 
have  been  poured  out  in  anticipation  of  the  complete  wreck  of  our 
free  institutions  for  the  want  of  statutes  to  make  men  read  the  Bible, 
and  citizens  behave  themselves  as  Christians,  whether  they  believe  in 
Christianity  or  not.  No,  I  have  no  tears  to  shed  for  such  disasters 
from  such  a  cause.  True  religion  is  necessary  for  the  preservation 
of  our  country,  but  the  way  to  spread  true  religion  and  increase  its 
power,  is  to  let  it  work  its  own  way.  If  my  zealous  evangelical  law- 
loving  friends  will  only  let  the  Church  of  Christ  alone,  and  leave  it 
to  support  itself  by  its  own  weapons,  I  am  perfectly  confident  the 
gates  of  hell  will  never  prevail  against  it.  And  if  our  great,  glorious, 
and  free  institutions,  are  only  let  alone — kept  free  from  this  ever- 
lasting tinkering  of  fanatical  clergymen,  priests,  and  demagogues, 
they  will  stand  for  ever.  If  ever  the  liberties  of  America  perish,  it 
will  hehy  the  hands  of  quasi-religious  demagogues.  Only  sacerdotal 
hands  can  ever  ply  the  torch  to  the  temple  of  our  liberties. 


XVII. 

Majorities  have  no  rights  over  Conscience. 

"  It  is  of  great  importance  in  a  Republic  not  only  to  guard  the  Soci*;ty  from 
the  oppression  of  its  rulers,  but  to  guard  one  part  of  society  against  the 
injustice  of  the  other  part.  Justice  is  the  end  of  government.  It  is  the  end 
of  civil  society." — Mr.  Hamilton  in  the  Federalist. 

"  Let  all  bear  in  mind  this  sacred  principle,  that  though  the  will  of  the 
majority  is  in  all  cases  to  prevail,  that  will,  to  be  rightful,  must  be  reasonable ; 


102  THE  BIBLE   AND   POLITICS. 

that  the  minority  possess  their  equal  rights,  which  equal  law  must  protect, 
and  to  violate  which  would  be  oppression.  And  let  us  reflect  that  having 
banished  from  our  land  that  religious  intolerance  under  which  mankind  so 
long  bled  and  suffered,  we  have  yet  gained  little,  if  we  countenance  a  political 
intolerance  as  despotic,  as  bribed,  and  capable  of  as  bitter  and  bloody  perse- 
cutions."— Jefferson! s  Inaugural. 

Mr.  Calhoun,  in  the  Senate  in  1842,  in  replying  to  the  arguments 
of  Mr.  Clay  and  Mr.  Archer,  and  in  showing  that  the  popular  will, 
as  expressed  in  the  presidential  election,  was  not  to  be  regarded  as  a 
principle  of  action  in  the  government,  said:  "As  the  government  ap- 
proaches nearer  and  nearer  to  the  one  absolute  and  single  power — the 
will  of  the  greater  number — its  action  will  become  more  and  more  dis- 
turbed and  irregular;  faction,  corruption,  and  anarchy,  will  more  and 
more  abound ;  patriotism  will  daily  decay,  and  affection  and  reverence  for 
the  government  grow  weaker  and  weaker,  until  the  final  shock  occurs, 
when  the  system  will  rush  into  ruin,  and  the  sword  take  the  place  of 
law  and  constitution.^^  And  the  only  remedy  for  this  dangerous 
tendency  to  the  tyranny  of  a  numerical  majority,  "  is  to  be  found  in 
the  Constitution,  acknowledged  by  all  to  be  the  fundamental  and 
supreme  law  of  the  land.  It  is  full  and  perfect,  because  it  is  the 
expression  of  the  voice  of  each  State,  adopted  by  the  separate  assent 
of  each,  by  itself,  and  for  itself;  and  is  the  voice  of  all  by  being  that 
of  each  component  part,  united  and  blended  into  one  harmonious 
whole.  It  is  not  only  full  and  perfect,  but  as  just  as  it  is  full  and 
perfect ;  for,  combining  the  sense  of  each,  and  therefore  all,  there  is 
nothing  left  on  which  injustice  or  oppression,  or  usurpation,  can 
operate.  And,  finally,  it  is  as  supreme  as  it  is  just;  because,  com- 
prehending the  will  of  all  by  uniting  that  of  each  of  the  parts,  there 
is  nothing  within  or  above  to  control  it.  It  is  indeed  the  voxpojtuli, 
vox  Dei, — the  creating  voice  that  called  the  system  into  existence — 
and  of  which  the  government  itself  is  but  a  creature,  clothed  with 
delegated  powers  to  execute  its  high  behests." — Calhoun's  Works , 
iv  vol.,  pp.  92,  93. 

It  is  as  plain  as  it  can  be  there  is  no  security  against  the  absolute 
and  despotic  control  of  the  numerical  majority,  but  in  the  full,  perfect, 
just\  and  supreme  voice  of  the  people  embodied  in  the  (.Constitution 
and  laws  of  the  land.  In  dispensing  with  its  sacred  shield  for  a 
single  moment,  we  dethrone  "the  Deity  of  our  political  system,"  and 
invoke  our  own  perdition — or  as  Lord  Camden  once  said,  "  since  the 
price  of  one  hour's  English  liberty  none  but  an  English  jury  can 
estimate,  so  if  we  once  establish  a  dispensing  power,  regardless  of  the 
Constitution  in  the  mere  will  of  a  momentary  majority,  we  are  not 
sure  either  of  liberty  or  law  forty  minutes."  I  am  afraid  of  all  con- 
structive powers  either  in  Church  or  State.  I  am  satisfied  with  the 
Gospel  and  with  the  Constitution  as  it  is.  The  opponents  of  our 
views — one  and  all,  with  all  their  might — urge  that  "  a  majority  must 
rule."  I  answer,  yes,  a  majority  must  rule,  but  it  must  be  according 
to  the  Constitution.     For  if  a  simple  numerical   majority   is   the 


THE   POLITICAL  ASPECTS.  108 

supreme  lav^,  then  we  have  no  constitution — no  organic  laws — the 
supreme  rule  of  right  and  wrong  is  the  momentary  will  of  the  ma- 
jority— and,  consequently,  if  we  are  in  Italy  or  Mexico,  we  must 
become  Catholics,  and  if  in  Persia,  Fire-worshippers,  or  if  in  Utah, 
Mormons.  And  if  the  numerical  majority  of  the  human  race  is  to 
decide  what  is  truth,  and  which  religion  is  true,  then  we  must  burn 
our  Bibles,  and  become  Pagans.  Now  there  are  many  objections  to 
allowing  a  question  of  this  sort  to  be  decided  by  any  local  or  temporary 
numerical  majority,  among  which  I  beg  to  say: 

First.  It  makes  this  question  a  political  shibboleth,  against  which 
I  have  earnestly  remonstrated  in  the  previous  chapter.  Let  us  take 
the  late  elections  in  New  York  City  as  an  illustration ;  the  Protes- 
tants have  succeeded,  and  the  Catholics  as  law-abiding  citizens,  say  : 
^^  Well,  we  submit."  But  next  year,  at  the  election,  the  partisan 
watch  word  is  a  division  of  the  school  fund,  and  suppose  it  obtains  a 
majority  at  the  polls.  Now,  what  will  the  minority,  who  were  the 
majority  last  year,  do  ?  Why,  submit,  of  course.  And  thus  they 
go,  defeating  and  being  defeated  every  year,  for  a  quarter  of  a  cen- 
tury, until  the  battle  cry  is  King  James'  Bible  or  the  Douay  Bible  ] 
and  suppose,  then,  that  a  majority  at  the  polls  says,  thrust  out  King 
James'  and  put  in  the  Douay,  what  then  ?  This  is  the  voice  of  the 
majority.  These,  fellow-citizens,  are  the  fearful  whirlpools  to  which 
we  are  drifting,  if  we  establish  the  rule,  that  a  mere  local  or  tempo- 
rary majority  is  the  supreme  law  on  this  subject.  Look  at  it,  then,  I 
beseech  you,  full  in  the  face,  and  consider  the  bearings  and  reach  of 
such  a  precedent.  I  ask  any  candid  man,  what  were  the  feelings  and 
purposes  of  the  majority  who  carried  the  late  elections  ?  I  judge  no 
man.  Many  were,  no  doubt,  honest  and  pure  minded ;  but  is  it  not 
reasonable  to  conclude  that,  in  the  dust,  and  excitement,  and  tur- 
moil, and  wire-pulling,  and  scramble  for  the  loaves  and  the  fishes, 
that  many  cast  their  votes  for  a  consideration,  and  out  of  hatred  to 
foreigners  and  enmity  to  the  Catholic  Church,  and  for  partisan  pur- 
poses, and  not  from  a  sincere  love  for  the  Word  of  God  ?  And,  on 
the  other  side,  was  there  not  just  as  much  bitterness  arrayed  against 
the  Protestants;  and  by  the  prevailing  of  this  majority,  is  there  not 
a  new  wall  raised  up  between  Catholics  and  Protestants,  and  a  new 
barrier  in  the  way  of  ever  inducing  a  Catholic  in  New  York  to  read 
our  Bible?  I  do  not  assume  to  sit  in  judgment  on  the  voters  of  New 
York.  I  do  not  call  in  question  the  purity  of  their  motives,  as  a 
whole,  for  voting  as  they  did;  but  judging  of  such  matters  from  his- 
tory and  from  our  knowledge  of  human  nature,  I  ask  if  there  is  not 
great  danger  to  our  popular  institutions  in  bringing  such  elements 
into  our  politics  ? 

Secondly.  Numerical  majorities  are  not  the  standard  of  truth  and 
right ;  they  are  not  always  correct.  And  the  largeness  of  the  num- 
ber who  may  be  in  error  does  not  correct  the  error,  but  only  makes  it 
worse.  We  know  that  the  whole  world  lieth  in  wickedness,  and  that 
there  is  not  a  just  man  upon  earth,  who  doeth  good  and  sinneth  not. 


104  THE   BIBLE  AND   POLITICS. 

In  times  past,  all  nations  were  suffered  to  walk  in  their  own  ways ; 
and  now  that  God  commandeth  all  men  everywhere  to  repent,  they 
do  not  seem  to  have  greatly  reformed  their  ways.  In  my  late  work 
on  Esther,  chapter  tenth,  I  have  shown  that  the  vox  j^opuli  is  not 
always  the  vox  Dei.  I  only  add  here  the  following  illustration  from 
the  life  of  the  Rev.  Johji  Wesley,  whose  name  is  a  household  word  in 
Christendom.  He  was  once  engaged  in  an  argument  with  his  sister, 
whose  talents  were  not  unworthy  of  the  family  in  favor  of  the  doctrine 
vox  populi,  vox  Dei.  "  I  tell  you,"  said  Mr.  Wesley,  the  voice  of 
the  people  is  the  voice  of  God."  "  Yes,"  said  his  sister,  ''  no  doubt 
of  it;  they  once  cried,  crucify  Him,  crucify  Him."  ''  And  in  the 
bulk  of  mankind  for  ages  and  by  most  ballot  boxes,  Barrabas  will  go 
as  far  as  Jesus,"  is  the  dictum  of  one  of  the  profoundest  thinkers  of 
the  age. 

Thirdly.  This  method  of  settling  this  question  will  lead  to  the 
division  of  the  school  fund,  and  to  the  division  of  the  school-dis- 
tricts according  to  sectarian  or  denominational  majorities.  If  King 
James'  Bible  is  voted  into  this  district,  the  Douay  will  be  voted  into 
another,  and  the  Baptist  version  into  another,  and  the  Episcopalian 
service  into  another,  and  in  Utah  the  Mormon  Bible,  and  in  a  He- 
brew district  the  Talmud.  If  once  it  is  established  that  whatever 
religious  book  or  service  a  majority  within  the  district  may  wish  to 
have  in  the  school  is  to  be  used  in  it,  then  those  in  that  district  will 
seek  to  find  a  district  where  they  can  make  a  majority  like  minded 
with  themselves.  And  so  we  shall  have  warring  sects  and  fighting 
school-districts,  and  our  teachers  will  become  drill  sergeants  for  the 
battle  of  the  Churches.  One  legion  will  have  its  head-quarters  on 
Market  street,  another  in  Stockton  street,  and  another  at  North  Beach. 
Salt  Lake  City,  New  Orleans  and  Boston  will  be  training  armies  to 
fight  each  other  to  the  death  for  religious  dogmas.  No  I  no  !  my 
heart  sickens  at  such  thoughts.  Let  us  abide,  fiilly,  honestly  and 
truly,  by  the  Constitution  as  it  is,  interpreting  our  school  laws  as  a 
compromise,  and  as  occupying  precisely  the  same  ground  in  regard  to 
religion  that  our  fundamental  laws  do.  This  is  the  way  of  peace 
and  security.  The  operation  of  this  majority  rule  is,  in  my  humble 
opinion,  unjust,  unconstitutional  and  tyrannical,  when  applied  to 
school  districts,  and  in  regard  to  religion.  It  will  operate  in  this 
way :  In  school-district  A,  a  majority  of  the  tax-payers  say,  we  wish 
the  Protestant  Bible  to  be  used,  but  the  minority,  paying  equal  taxes, 
according  to  their  number  and  property,  say,  this  Protestant  Bible, 
according  to  our  solemn  convictions,  is  not  a  proper  book  for  the  school, 
and  we  do  not  wish  our  children  to  read  it,  or  to  be  taught  religion  out 
of  it.  But  the  majority  rule,  and  the  minority  must  submit  either 
to  lose  their  share  in  the  common  school  fund,  or  to  have  their  reli- 
gious rights  taken  from  them.  And  in  school-district  B.  the  case 
stands  in  this  way  :  A  majority  say,  we  wish  the  Douay  Bible,  and 
prayers  by  a  priest  in  the  school.  The  minority  object,  and  say, 
this  is  offensive  to  our  religious  conscience.     But  there  is  no  redress, 


MINORITY- CONSCIENCE  SACRED.  105 

because  they  are  in  the  minority.  They  must  be  robbed  of  their  share 
of  the  school  fund,  or  submit  to  have  their  conscience  trampled 
upon.  And  the  operation  of  such  a  rule  will  be  equally  oppressive 
as  to  teachers,  and  would  virtually  exclude  many  from  the  profession 
by  requiring  a  religious  test.  I  cannot,  for  the  life  of  me,  see  how 
it  is  that  a  Catholic  has  not  as  much  right  to  the  benefit  of  his  taxes, 
and  as  much  right  to  freedom  of  conscience  as  a  Protestant.  Why 
has  he  not  as  much  right  to  object  to  our  requiring  his  child  to  chant 
our  version  of  the  Lord's  Prayer,  as  we  have  to  object  to  his  requir- 
ing our  child  *  to  repeat  prayers  to  the  Virgin  Mary  ?  I  do  not  see 
why  the  Catholic  has  not  as  much  right  to  say  that  his  conscience  is 
as  enlightened  and  as  truthful  as  ours.  Our  fundamental  laws  do 
not  know  any  difference  between  the  versions,  nor  make  school  direc- 
tors keepers  of  the  conscience. 

Fourthly.  It  is  urged,  at  every  turn  of  this  subject,  that  we  must 
*'  put  the  Bible  into  the  schools  without  regard  to  the  objections  of 
the  minority,  for  the  great  American  doctrine  is  that  the  majority 
rules.''  Now,  again,  I  say,  this  is  true  only  as  far  as  the  subject- 
matter  has  been  put  into  the  hands  of  popular  sovereignty.  Con- 
gress, for  example,  acts  under  a  Constitution  of  delegated  and  limited 
powers,  and  the  same  is  true  of  our  State  Legislatures.  And  among 
these  delegated  powers,  we  do  not  find  the  right  to  bind  the  conscience, 
or  to  do  anything  to  sustain  any  religion ;  but  expressly  the  reverse. 
We  find  that  the  obligations  of  the  government  are  the  same  to  all  citi- 
zens, without  knowing  whether  they  have  any  religion,  and,  in  fact, 
without  having  the  power  to  ask  them  whether  they  believe  in  the 
Pope,  the  Grand  Lama,  or  Mohammed,  or  in  Jesus  Christ;  and  that 
the  consciences  of  a  minority  are  not  the  less  sacred  than  those  of  a 
majority.  I  do  not  see  how  a  conscience  is  to  know  either  a  minority 
or  a  majority.  And,  certainly,  our  organic  laws  do  not  distinguish 
between  a  plurality  or  a  minority  of  consciences,  as  to  religious  faith 
and  worship.  They  say  to  every  one  and  to  all  alike.  Exercise  your  own 
conscience  on  religious  matters,  but  commit  no  nuisance  nor  offense  to 
the  civil  laws.  The  question,  then,  is  not  one  between  the  conscience 
of  a  minority  and  the  conscience  of  a  majority,  but  between  con- 
science in  the  citizen  and  the  Constitution  itself,  and  the  Constitu- 
tion declares  that  it  has  no  right  or  power  over  the  individual  con- 
science at  all,  and  that,  therefore,  it  is  left  to  its  own  absolute  free- 
dom. Our  government,  it  must  be  remembered,  recognizes  as  reli- 
gious rights  what,  in  most  other  governments,  comes  under  the  head 
of  toleration.  And,  by  our  laws,  these  rights  are  not  enjoyed  by 
virtue  of  legislative  indulgence.  They  are  rights  which  the  govern- 
ment cannot  take  from  any  citizen,  but  which  it  has  pledged  itself  to 
protect  for  every  one.  And,  in  all  such  rights,  our  Constitution 
regards  the  conscience  of  an  Israelite  or  a  Pagan  just  as  sacred  as 
the  conscience  of  a  Protestant  or  Catholic,  and  allows  nothing  to  dis- 
tress the  conscience  of  a  solitary  citizen.  It  knows  no  human  being 
by  his  creed,  nor  after  his  catechism ;  but  guarantees  alike  to  all 


106  THE   BIBLE  AND   POLITICS. 

unrestrained  personal  religious  freedom.  A  majority  has  no  more 
right  to  vote  away  the  conscience  of  a  minority  than  they  have  to 
deprive  them  of  their  property.  The  rights  of  individuals  are  recog- 
nized by  our  laws  in  a  much  fuller  sense  than  was  ever  done  in  the 
ancient  republics.  With  us  there  is  a  broad  line  of  demarcation  be- 
tween what  belongs  to  citizens  and  to  individuals,  and  all  religious 
matters  are  left  to  us  as  individuals.  In  farming  or  trading,  so  long 
as  I  do  not  offend  the  laws,  I  am  protected  in  my  individual  rights. 
I  may  buy  and  sell  what  I  please,  and  at  such  prices  as  I  choose  to 
pay  or  to  take.  This  is  not  the  business  of  the  State.  All  this  is 
my  own  responsibility.  And  when  we  leave  the  secular  and  civil 
domain  and  enter  the  province  of  religion,  our  policy  is  the  same. 
The  government  has  secured  but  one  thing,  which  is  perfect  and 
equal  protection,  without  any  discrimination  or  preference  to  any 
one's  religion,  and  that  protection,  too,  is  equally  extended  to  minori- 
ties as  to  majorities — in  fact,  it  knows  no  numerical  majority  on  the 
subject.  Nor  can  it.  "  Religion,"  said  the  Presbyterians  of  Vir- 
ginia, in  1785,  "  is  altogether  personal,  and  the  right  of  exercising 
it  unalienable,  and  it  is  not,  cannot,  and  ought  not  to  be  resigned, 
either  to  society  at  large,  and  much  less  to  the  Legislature."  No. 
It  never  was  resigned  to  the  members  of  the  first  Congress,  nor  to  the 
members  of  the  Convention  who  framed  the  Constitution.  Religion, 
in  all  its  length  and  breadth,  is  reserved  among  our  individual  rights. 
It  was  never  yielded  to  society,  nor  can  it  be.  The  rights  of  con- 
science were  not  put  into  the  common  capital  stock  out  of  which  to 
construct  our  Union  and  Grovernment.  They  were  not  represented 
at  all  in  the  Convention,  nor  recognized  by  the  framers  of  the  gov- 
ernment, except  as  to  guarantee  perfect  and  equal  freedom.  Our 
organic  laws  have  no  power  over  them.  Nor  can  they  have.  For 
the  civil  ruler  may  as  well  undertake  to  bind  the  winds  and  fetter 
the  waves  as  to  chain  opinions  and  beliefs.  But  I  am  told,  "  the 
minority  of  Infidels,  Catholics,  Israelites  and  Mohammedans,  in  a  school- 
district,  must  submit  to  have  our  Bible  used,  even  if  their  religious 
consciences  are  offended,  because  they  have  consented  to  avail  them- 
selves of  the  united  action  of  the  State,  as  put  forth  in  the  school 
system."  To  this  I  answer,  if  the  school  system  is  a  quasi  religious 
establishment,  the  Constitution  never  authorized  it,  and  this  minority 
has  never  yielded  any  right  to  the  government  to  teach  either  them- 
selves or  their  children  any  religion.  They  became  citizens  under 
a  Constitution  that  guaranteed  to  them,  whether  minorities  or  majori- 
ties, the  same  equal  and  perfect  religious  liberty,  and  the  free  exer- 
cise of  their  religious  opinions,  without  let,  hindrance  or  restraint. 
We  have  never  —  whether  native  born  or  naturalized  citizens  — 
yielded  the  right  to  the  State  to  make  inquisition  about  the  con- 
science, nor  to  decide  in  favor  of  a  numerical  majority-conscience. 
Never.  There  is  no  such  power  asserted  in  the  Bill  of  Rights,  nor 
in  our  organic  laws.  On  the  contrary,  no  discrimination,  test  or 
preference  can  be  shown  by  our  laws,  in  religious  things.     The  State 


SCHOOL   LAWS  A   COMPROMISE.  107 

cannot  know  whether  it  is  ^^  half  a  dozen"  or  half  a  million — whether 
they  are  "  a  foreign,  uneducated,  anti-Bible-reading,  blaspheming 
portion  of  the  people  who  fill  our  prisons,  and  from  whose  ranks  our 
criminals  are  drawn,  and  who  pay  but  a  tithe  of  the  taxes,  and  who 
cost  us,  in  the  way  of  police  expenses,  more  .than  a  sum  sufficient  to 
educate  all  the  youths  of  the  nation" — our  government,  I  say,  cannot 
entertain  any  such  inquisition  as  this.  We  are  citizens,  or  we  are 
not.  If  we  are,  the  government  cannot  ask  where  we  were  born,  nor 
whether  we  believe  in  Saint  Nicholas  or  Baal,  Confucius  or  Bel  and 
the  Dragon.  But  it  pledges  itself  that  my  conscience  shall  be  as 
sacred  as  any  other  citizen's.  And  it  says.  The  rights  of  individuals 
to  freedom  of  conscience  are  inalienable.  It  is  not,  then,  the  Ameri- 
can doctrine  that  ninety-nine  citizens  may  compel  the  hundredth  one 
to  read  the  Bible,  or  say  his  prayers.  And  what  they  cannot  do  to 
him,  they  cannot  do  with  his  child.  This  is  a  fallacy,  then,  of  a 
most  dangerous  tendency. 

If  our  national  school  system  is  as  I  have  already  said,  and  as  I  be- 
lieve it  must  be,  a  compromise  like  our  Federal  Constitution,  then 
let  it  be  worked  just  as  the  Constitution  is,  as  a  compromise,  ignor- 
ing altogether  any  discrimination  between  or  prefence  for  any  reli- 
gion, and  without  showing  favor  to  any  sect.  It  cannot  be  anything 
more  or  less  than  a  compromise  like  the  Federal  Constitution,  be- 
cause it  is  made  after  it  as  a  model  and  by  its  authority,  and  under 
the  same  delegated  powers  ;  and  moreover,  in  declaring  the  rights  of 
the  State  and  in  enacting  our  school  laws  no  power  was  yielded  or 
claimed  to  perform  for  the  people  a  sacramental  act,  or  a  ritual  service 
or  to  teach  or  control  religion  at  all.  Neither  the  Constitution  nor 
the  Legislature  have  any  such  delegated  authority.  And  even,  if  it 
is  admitted,  which  I  do  not  admit,  that  the  State  takes  the  place  of 
the  parent,  I  ask  if  it  is  not  the  most  cruel  tyranny  for  it  in  that  as- 
sumed office  to  teach  the  child  a  religion  that  the  parent  himself  ut- 
terly repudiates,  and  for  the  State  to  do  this,  after  having  guaranteed 
to  that  parent  that  his  religious  conscience  is  a  thing  so  sacred  that  it 
shall  not  be  offended. 

It  is  also  an  error  to  say  that  we  wish  **the  Roman  Catholic^s  con- 
science to  have  more  consideration  on  this  great  vital  question  than  the 
birth-right  of  American  citizenship."  No,  not  m,ore,  but  just  the  same. 
That  is,  if  the  Protestant  is  not  willing  to  send  his  child  to  a  school 
where  prayers  to  the  Virgin  Mary  are  used,  then  he  ought  not  to 
require  the  Catholic  to  send  his  children  to  a  school  where  the  Pro- 
testant religion  is  taught — both  being  equal  as  citizens  and  tax-pay- 
ers. I  cannot  therefore  agree  with  my  friend,  that  it  is  a  "  supreme 
absurdity"  to  appeal  to  the  Constitution  against  the  violation  of  the 
rights  of  conscience  in  this  matter ;  nor  that  this  appeal  is  "  a  fair 
sophistry  swept  away  with  a  few  words." 

But  it  is  said  "  the  not  making  laws  to  compel  the  use  of  the  Bi- 
ble is  doing  a  greater  violence  to  more  conscience"  than  the  making 
of  such  a  statute  would  be.      Now  this  statement   must  always  be 


108  THE  BIBLB  AND   POLITICS. 

examined  locally  before  we  can  know  whether  it  is  in  any  sense  true. 
In  some  districts  it  may  be  altogether  erroneous.  But  suppose  there  is 
a  majority  that  wish  such  a  law,  and  a  minority  that  do  not  wish  it. 
Then  how  is  it  to  be  decided  ?  Why,  as  our  laws  do  not  know  any- 
thing of  the  conscience  0/  majorities  or  minorities,  but  to  protect  it, 
I  should  say,  ignore  the  subject  altogether.  But  then  you  say  the 
majority  conscience  is  violated.  I  answer,  majorities  have  no  right 
by  law  to  put  forth  such  claims  for  conscience.  They  are  not  pro- 
hibited from  reading  the  Bible  elsewhere,  and  as  much  as  they 
please ;  and  if  they  wish  to  read  and  preach  it  the  whole  world  is 
open  to  them.  But  they  cannot  surely  complain  that  conscience  is 
violated,  because  they  are  not  permitted  to  perform  a  religious  act 
and  conduct  official  religious  worship  in  a  Public  School,which  is  not 
established  for  such  a  purpose  at  all.  They  may  just  as  well  com- 
plain that  their  conscience  is  violated,  if  they  are  not  allowed  to  pray 
in  the  Police  Court,  or  to  hold  a  camp-meeting  in  Montgomery 
street.  There  is  a  palpable  difference  between  the  constraining  a 
man  to  do  as  an  official  act  what  his  church  and  his  conscience  forbid 
him  to  do,  and  the  not  allowing  him  to  do  what  he  as  an  individual 
desires  to  do — but  to  do  in  places  and  at  times  that  invade  the  rights 
of  others.  For  example,  taxes  are  levied  to  establish  Public  Schools, 
which,  however,  are  not  meeting-houses  or  churches.  They  were  not 
built  to  be  altars  or  sanctuaries.  They  are  the  property  of  the  State 
which  is  altogether  a  civil,  and  not  a  religious  institution.  And  no 
violence  is  done  to  anybody's  religious  conscience  by  teaching  the 
elements  of  secular  knowledge  in  them.  The  school  was  not  estab- 
lished to  teach  religion.  If  religion  then  is  not  taught  there,  you 
have  no  right  to  complain.  You  have  your  quid  pro  quo.  You  ought 
to  be  content.  You  would  have  as  much  right  to  complain  that  the 
Pastor  and  Sunday-school  teacher  of  your  child  in  your  own  parish 
Church  do  not  teach  him  arithmetic,  as  you  have  to  find  fault  that 
religion  is  not  taught  in  the  Public  School.  And  your  complaint  is 
all  the  more  unreasonable,  because  your  child  may  have  his  Bible  in 
his  hand  every  day  at  home,  and  you  may  read  and  explain  it  to  him 
at  family  prayers,  where  it  is  much  more  likely  to  do  him  good. 
Then,  again,  as  the  State  is  not  competent  to  teach  religion,  nei- 
ther has  it  professed  to  be,  nor  have  you  ever  yielded  to  it  the  right 
to  do  so,  therefore,  you  have  no  reason  to  say,  that  your  conscience  is 
grieved,  because  the  State  does  not  do  what  you  have  not  empowered  it 
to  do,  and  which  it  never  promised  you  it  -would  do.  Again,  no  error  or 
ir -religion  is /orce(f  upon  your  child  at  the  Public  School  by  not  teach- 
ing him  the  Bible.  It  is  a  negative  evil  of  which  you  complain,  and 
one  that  you  of  all  others  in  the  world  should  yourself  correct.  But 
on  the  other  hand  the  conscience  of  your  neighbor  is  aggrievedy  by 
your  compelling  the  school  to  teach  as  religion  what  he  does  not  be- 
lieve, or  does  not  wish  thus  to  be  taught  to  his  child.  Your  neighbor 
may  be  all  wrong,  and  you  may  be  right,  but  still  this  is  his  view, 
and  he  has  as  much  right  to  be  considered  honest  as  you  have.    And 


1 

parents'  duties.  109 

if  parents  are  anxious  to  have  their  children  taught  the  Bible  and 
taught  to  pray,  as  they  should  be,  then  they  have  Saturday  and  Sun- 
day, and  every  morning  and  evening  for  this  purpose.  Only  some 
six  hours  for  tive  days  of  the  week  are  spent  in  the  Public  Schools; 
all  the  rest  of  the  week  they  have  at  their  disposal,  and  the  laws  pro- 
tect them  in  teaching  their  child  as  much  of  the  Bible  and  of  our 
holy  religion  as  they  please. 

It  is  only  under  limitation,  that  I  admit  the  right  of  the  State  to 
educate  our  children  at  all.  And,  surely,  in  yielding  to  the  State  the 
power  to  provide  a  system  of  Public  Schools,  it  was  not  meant  to  give 
to  the  State  the  power  to  teach  religion,  and  therefore  to  use  the  Bible. 

The  attempt,  then,  to  compel  me  or  my  child  to  hear  the  Bible 
read,  or  to  do  any  religious  act,  or  attend  on  any  ritualistic  service  as 
the  reading  of  the  Ten  Commandments  or  of  the  Lord's  Prayer,  is  a 
usurpation,  is  a  pure  despotism,  and  in  every  way  contrary  both  to 
our  laws  and  to  the  Gospel.  Even  in  matters  of  secular  education, 
I  do  not  yield  the  Lacedemonian  right  to  the  State  to  take  my  child 
out  of  my  hands  and  educate  him  for  itself.  Much  less  in  regard  to 
religious  matters.  I  claim  the  same  right,  in  regard  to  religion,  for 
my  child,  that  I  do  for  myself. 

To  say,  therefore,  that  a  majority  must  rule  in  this  matter  is  to  over- 
look the  fact  that  our  Constitution  and  laws  protect  minorities  in  their 
unalienable  rights  and  privileges,  among  which  certainly  we  should 
class  freedom  of  conscience,  and  exemption  from  paying  taxes  for  the 
support  of  any  form  of  religion,  or  for  the  teaching  of  any  religion. 
And  besides,  this  is  an  exceedingly  dangerous  position  to  assume,  as 
I  have  shown  elsewhere  in  this  Tractate,  for  the  majority  of  to-day 
may  be  the  minority  of  to-morrow,  and  if  we  act  the  tyrant  when  we 
are  in  the  majority,  we  should  expect  to  be  the  victim  when  we  be- 
come the  minority.  It  is  human  retaliation;  nay,  it  is  sometimes 
retributive  justice,  even  in  this  world,  to  make  a  man  drink  the  poi- 
soned cup  he  has  drugged  for  his  neighbor.  An  attempt  to  shift  the 
odium  of  proscription,  by  claiming  that  it  is  the  majority  whose 
consciences  are  violated,  is  made  by  some  of  the  writers  whose  opi- 
nions I  am  examining  in  this  way  :  The  question  is  not,  say  they, 
"  when  and  how  we  may  use  the  Bible,  without  interfering  with  the 
prejudices  or  speculative  opinions  of  an  ecclesiastical  sect  or  political 
party ;  but  the  true  question  is,  how  much  liberty  have  we  a  right  to 
claim."  Agreed.  And  the  answer  is,  you  have  all  the  right  the 
Constitution  and  the  Gospel  gives  you,  and  no  more ;  but  they  do 
not  give  you  the  right  to  take  A's  tax  money  to  have  your  children 
taught  your  own  or  any  other  person's  religion.  Neither  the  Bible 
nor  the  Gospel  allows  you  to  claim  liberty  for  yourself  that  you  do 
not  allow  to  your  neighbor.  If  you  are  not  willing  to  pay  taxes  to 
support  a  school  in  which  your  neighbor,  who  is  equal  with  yourself 
in  all  civil  rights  and  in  his  support  of  the  government,  wishes 
to  have  the  Koran,  or  the  Talmud,  or  the  Roman  Missal  used,  then 
you  have  no  right  to  compel  him  to  pay  taxes  to  support  a  school  in 
which  your  religion  is  taught. 


110  THE   BIBLE  AND   POLITICS. 

This  whole  argument  about  a  numerical  conscience,  is  a  fallacy 
that  it  gives  me  pain  to  contemplate.  The  ground  must  be  taken  by 
those  who  urge  its  claims,  that  conscience  is  the  supreme  rule,  or  that 
it  is  not.  But  surely  conscience  is  not  the  supreme  standard  of  right 
and  wrong.  For  if  so,  the  conscience  of  the  Hindoo  or  of  the  Bush- 
man, ^s  as  safe  as  the  conscience  of  Henry  Martyn.  But  my  friends 
say  they  mean  only  an  enlightened  conscience.  Well,  I  then  ask, 
how  is  it  to  be  enlightened,  and  by  what  is  it  to  be  enlightened,  and 
to  what  extent  enlightened,  and  who  is  to  measure  the  enlightenment, 
and  to  decide  when  the  conscience  is  sufficiently  enlightened  to  be  a 
reliable  rule  of  faith  and  manners  ?  To  ask  these  questions  is  to 
show  the  utter  impossibility  of  making  conscience  the  rule  of  right  in 
such  a  case.  What  then  is  meant  by  saying  that  the  conscience  of  a 
majority  must  lord  it  over  the  conscience  of  a  minority?  AVhy,  as 
far  as  I  can  apprehend  it,  the  meaning  is  this  :  Consciences  are  to  be 
weighed  and  measured,  and  that  as  at  present  Protestants  are  more 
numerous  in  the  United  States  than  Boman  Catholics,  and  Israelites, 
and  all  other  sects  who  do  not  wish  the  Bible  to  be  used  by  law  in 
the  Public  Schools,  so  the  decision  is  to  be  in  their  favor.  They 
count  consciences,  and  they  have  a  majority.  They  weigh  consciences, 
and  their  end  of  the  scale  is  the  heaviest.  As  far  as  I  have  been  able 
to  understand  this  plea  of  a  majority  conscience,  this  is  the  sum  and 
gist  of  their  arguments.  And,  in  answer,  I  have  to  say  further :  first, 
that  it  is  an  inconvenient,  unsafe,  unjust,  and  dangerous  rule,  because 
it  may  happen  that  the  enlightenment  of  the  minority  conscience  is 
much  greater  than  the  sum  total  of  the  enlightenment  of  the  numerical 
majority.  And  if  so,  what  becomes  of  the  plea  for  an  enlightened 
conscience  ?  Secondly,  this  method  of  settling  a  religious  controversy, 
is  to  assume  for  conscience  a  position  unknown  to  the  Word  of  God 
and  to  the  laws  of  the  land.  Conscience  is  not  our  lawgiver,  nor  the 
executive  of  our  laws  either  in  the  Church  or  in  the  State.  The 
Bible  tells  us  of  some  men  who  were  following  conscience,  and  yet 
sinning  against  God.  And  daily  observation  proves  to  us  that  men 
are  continually  erring,  though  at  the  time  they  may  have  a  conscience 
void  of  offense.  The  law  does  not  excuse  a  man  because  he  pleads 
that  his  conscience  is  enlightened  and  innocent.  Thirdly,  even  if 
an  enlightened  conscience  could  be  counted  and  weighed,  who  is 
to  do  it?  The  State  cannot.  Her  jurisdiction  is  with  conduct,  not 
over  opinions  or  thoughts,  or  the  moral  status  of  the  soul,  as  it  is  to 
answer  before  the  Almighty.  It  can  then  be  regarded  as  nothing  but 
a  specious  kind  of  ranting  to  appeal  to  the  popular  religious  passions 
of  the  sects,  to  say  that  the  great  Protestant  conscience,  and  the  deci- 
sions of  the  conscience  of  a  majority  of  so  many  millions  of  American 
Protestants,  are  disregarded,  by  not  compelling  our  Bible  to  be  used 
in  our  schools.  "  Any  violence  to  the  conscience  is  an  infringement 
on  our  religious  freedom."  Where,  then,  are  the  rights  of  the  con- 
science of  the  minority,  no  matter  how  meagre  it  may  be,  if  a  majority 
at  the  ballot-box  is  to  control  it?     "This  is  indeed  despotism,  not 


RIGHTS   OF   CONSCIENCE.  Ill 

republicanism."  And  surely  it  is  not  the  meaning  of  my  friends, 
that  the  Constitution  and  laws  of  our  country  allow  a  majority  at  the 
polls  to  tyrannize  over  the  conscience  of  a  minority.  They  do  not 
mean,  that  such  a  majority  can  rob  the  minority  of  their  share  in  the 
common  school  fund,  or  trample  their  conscience  under  their  feet. 
What  then  do  they  mean  ?  The  Gospel  knows  of  no  such  rights  in 
a  majority  over  a  minority.  And,  as  citizens,  we  are  not  known  as 
to  the  protection  of  conscience  by  numbers  at  all.  As  citizens,  we 
have  never  granted  this  power  to  the  government.  Neither  has  our 
Creator  given  it  to  our  law-makers.  All  our  government  can  do  is 
to  protect  every  one  in  the  free  exercise  of  his  religious  opinions  and 
rites,  subject  to  the  restrictions  as  before  explained,  which  are  neces- 
sary to  give  others  the  same  and  equal  rights.  If  the  state  is  a  civil 
institution,  then  it  has  no  power  to  legislate  for  the  use  of  the  Bible 
in  the  schools,  except  so  far  as  to  prevent  violence  being  done  to  the 
rights  of  citizens  vested  in  and  pertaining  to  the  schools.  And  as  to 
compelling  me  or  my  child  to  read,  or  hear  the  Bible  read,  it  has  no 
power  whatever.  The  government  has  no  right  to  ask  me  whether  I 
have  a  Bible,  or  whether  I  believe  in  Confucius.  If  it  has  the  right 
to  compel  me  to  use  the  Bible,  then  it  has  the  right  to  compel  me  to 
go  to  Church,  and  to  communion.  And  the  State  has  no  more  right 
to  direct  about  teaching  religion  to  my  child,  than  it  has  to  direct 
my  own  personal  religious  affairs. 

And  besides  all  this,  it  is  not  only  unconstitutional  and  unjust  for 
the  majority  to  lord  it  over  the  conscience  of  a  minority,  whose  reli- 
gious rights  are  as  sacred  to  them,  and  as  fully  protected  by  our  fun- 
damental laws  and  by  the  Gospel  as  are  ours;  but  it  is  highly  inexpe- 
dient and  in  the  highest  degree  dangerous,  in  two  respects.  First, 
it  is  a  departure  from  the  strict  letter  and  spirit  of  our  laws ;  and 
secondly,  if  from  our  having  the  advantage  of  a  majority  we  take  such 
a  liberty,  then  if  we  should  find  ourselves  in  the  future  in  a  minority, 
we  should  expect  to  have  our  own  cup  put  to  our  lips.  And  if  the 
greatest  good  to  the  greatest  number  authorizes  a  majority  in  any  one 
City  or  State  to  put  such  a  construction  on  our  organic  laws,  as  to 
make  a  Puritan  Sunday,  or  an  Episcopalian  Chaplaincy,  or  a  Presby- 
terian Bible  a  text  book  in  our  Public  Schools,  then  why  should  not 
the  same  rule  allow  the  Catholics  whenever  and  wherever  they  shall 
ha  ppen  to  have  a  numerical  majority  to  make  our  Public  Schools  all 
that  their  priests  desire  them  to  be  ?  If  the  Legislature  this  year  may 
pass  laws  to  sustain  Christianity,  then  next  year  they  may  enact  laws 
for  Mohammedanism.  Already,  the  newspapers  say,  a  petition  has 
been  presented  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  for  an  appropriation 
to  circulate  the  Book  of  Mormon.  There  is  no  safety,  but  in  refusing 
outright  to  furnish  a  handle  for  the  axe.  For  if  the  civil  authorities 
may  enact  laws  for  Christ's  kingdom,  then  whenever  a  numerical 
majority  have  the  heart  so  to  do,  they  may  pass  laws  against  Him. 
And  whether  they  uphold  Protestantism  or  Romanism,  will  depend 
upon  the  mere  accidental  majority  at  the  polls.      And  to  adopt  such 


112  THE   BIBLE   AND    POLITICS. 

a  rule  is  to  make  might  right.  Such  a  rule  also  justifies  all  the  pains 
and  penalties  and  torturings  and  deaths  ever  endured  for  conscience's 
sake.  For  all  such  measures  were  enforced  by  a  majority  conscience, 
and  on  the  plea  of  doing  God's  service.  The  Duke  of  Alva  and  the 
Duke  of  Tuscany  are  not  to  be  blamed  if  the  might  of  a  nu- 
merical majority  has  a  right  to  lord  it  over  the  consciences  of  a  mi- 
nority. But  they  are  not  possessed  of  any  such  right.  And  our 
laws  and  the  Gospel  do  no  give  a  majority  the  right  to  oppress  the 
conscience  of  the  feeblest  of  God's  creatures. 


XVIII. 

Compulsory  Bible  reading  insufficient. 

There  was  once  a  fierce  dispute  between  the  Wind  and  the  Sun,  which  was 
the  strongest,  and  they  agreed  to  test  their  strength  on  a  traveler,  to  see  which 
could  make  him  take  off  his  cloak  first.  Accordingly,  the  Wind  blew  with 
might  and  main,  cold  and  fierce  as  a  Thracian  storm;  but  this  only  made 
the  traveler  wrap  his  cloak  around  him,  grasp  it  the  tighter  with  his  hands. 
Then  the  Sun  broke  out,  and  irove  away  the  cold  vapors,  and,  as  the  traveler 
felt  his  genial  beams,  he  relaxed  his  muscles  and  his  knit  defiant  brow  ;  and, 
as  the  sun  shone  brighter  and  brighter,  he  sat  down  quiet  as  a  lamb,  and  threw 
oflf  his  cloak,  and  of  course  the  Sun  was  declared  the  conqueror. — JEsop. 

I  give  this  translation  of  an  old  fable,  because  I  think  it  is 
the  profoundest  orthodox  philosophy.  The  sunshine  of  kindness 
opens  the  heart  that  cannot  be  reached  by  the  force  and  blustering  of 
authority.  Persuasion  is  better  than  imperial  force.  Love  only  is 
omnipotent.  The  empire  is  peace.  For  a  series  of  years,  the  best 
men,  and  the  most  favored  nations,  have  been  struggling  to  free  them- 
selves from* religious  bigotry,  and  the  fetters  of  religious  establish- 
ments; why  then  should  we  go  back  to  the  disastrous  alliance  of 
religion  and  politics  ?  Of  all  people  on  earth  we  are  the  best  pre- 
pared to  carry  on  this  glorious  experiment,  and  the  results  thus  far 
are  certainly  in  favor  of  our  continuing  free. 

.  I  have  wondered,  in  this  age  of  Missionary  statistics,  that  we  have 
not  had  an  account  arithmetical  of  how  much  good  has  been  done  by 
reading  the  Bible  in  the  Public  Schools — that  we  have  not  been  told 
how  many  have  been  converted,  and  how  many  have  been  saved  from 
Heresy,  and  Popery,  and  Infidelity,  by  the  compulsory  use  of  the 
Bible  in  our  schools.  It  is  admitted,  I  think,  that  there  is  not  any- 
thing saving  in  the  mere  act  of  reading  or  hearing  the  Bible  read. 
The  Bible  is  not  a  charm  or  an  amulet.  Unless  its  true  meaning  is 
apprehended,  and  the  heart  and  the  life  are  influenced  by  it,  the 
mere  act  of  reading  a  few  verses  is  not  likely  to  do  much  good, 
especially  when  the  ears  and  the  heart  are  closed  against  them  by 


LEARNING    NOT   INFIDEL.  113 

prejudice  or  a  sense  of  injustice  and  wrong  done  by  this  very  act  of 
reading.  With  all  possible  respect  for  my  friends  whose  views  I 
cannot  adopt,  and  with  the  profoundest  reverence  for  the  Word  of 
God,  I  must  say,  that  I  believe  the  importance  of  reading  the  Bible 
in  the  Public  Schools,  under  all  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  very 
greatly  overstated.  And  I  think  so,  because,  the  mere  reading  of  it 
is  not  satisfacory  to  any  one.  It  is  in  opposition  to  the  wishes  of 
those  whose  consciences  are  aggrieved  by  it;  and  it  is  not  enough,  as 
we  have  seen,  to  satisfy  those  who  desire  their  children  to  be  taught 
religion  in  the  schools.  It  will  be  borne  in  mind  that  I  understand 
the  compulsory  use  of  the  Bible  in  our  schools,  to  be  equivalent  to 
teaching  religion  by  stress  of  law.  And  this,  it  is  said,  must  be 
done,  because,  "•  If  the  Bible  is  not  read  in  our  Public  Schools,  they 
will  become  infidel."  To  this  I  answer :  1.  The  mere  compulsoy 
letter  reading  of  the  Bible  is  not  a  preventive  of  Infidelity. 
The  neology  of  Germany,  the  Scepticism  of  France,  the  Deism  of 
England,  aad  the  Rationalism  of  the  United  States,  flourish  most 
with  those  who  are  liberally  educated,  and  in  that  education  is  to  be 
found  a  considerable  knowledge  of  the  literature  of  the  Bible.  Some 
of  the  bitterest  enemies  of  Divine  Revelation  in  our  day  are  Biblical 
scholars,  and  pupils  of  schools  where  the  Bible  was  taught. 

2.  Does  not  the  argument  obtain  with  equal  force  in  the  army  and 
navy,  in  our  hospitals  and  prisons,  and  in  our  foundries,  mills,  and 
factories  ?  Is  it  really  then  the  duty  of  the  State  to  become  a  col- 
porteur or  an  evangelist,  and  read  and  preach  the  Divine  Word 
wherever  men  are  congregated  't 

3.  Is  it  true  that  there  is  any  tendency  in  the  elements  of  a  mere 
secular  education  to  infidelity  ?  What  latent  infidelity  is  there  in 
grammar  or  arithmetic?  Does  astronomy  lead  to  unbelief?  I  thought 
a  poet  had  truthfully  said  :  "  the  undevout  astronomer  is  mad.'^  If 
there  is  essentially  a  tendency  in  the  secular  education  of  our  schools 
to  infidelity,  then  I  should  say  we  have  made  a  great  mistake  in  estab- 
lishing them,  and  the  sooner  they  are  discontinued  the  better.  It  is 
admitted  that  the  cases  above  referred  to  are  proofs  of  an  abuse  of 
what  is  essentially  good.  And  it  is  admitted  that  "  a  little  learning 
is  a  dangerous  thing,"  and  that  self-conceited  sciolists  are  sometimes 
professed  unbelievers ;  but  we  deny  that  profound  scholarship  and 
true  scientific  attainments  have  any  tendency  to  infidelity.  It  is 
true  that  knowledge  may  be  a  power  for  evil  as  well  as  for  good;  but 
such  an  abuse  of  secular  knowledge  is  no  more  an  argument  against 
it,  than  an  abuse  of  divine  knowledge  is  an  argument  against  the 
Bible-  If  there  is  an  inherent  tendency  in  the  study* of  grammar, 
geography,  chemistry,  and  in  the  art  of  reading  and  writing,  or  in 
learning  to  be  an  apothecary,  a  blacksmith,  or  in  the  elementary  branch- 
es of  any  other  trade  or  business,  to  infidelity,  how  are  we  to  correct  it  ? 
Must  we  hire  a  chaplain  to  stand  and  read  the  Bible  to  our  sons  all 
day  long  as  they  are  acquiring  the  elements  of  secular  knowledge  and 
business,  and  to  watch  over  them  as  the  Duennas  do  over  the  girls  of 

13 


114  THE   BIBLE   AND   POLITICS. 

the  continent  ?  It  seems  to  me  the  only  practicable  way  to  look  at 
this  subject,  is,  to  trust  the  secular  education  of  our  children  in  the 
Public  Schools,  just  as  we  do  when  we  send  them  to  learn  a  trade,  or 
to  acquire  the  knowledge  of  a  factory  or  a  warehouse ;  and,  that  we 
must  do  as  the  Israelites  of  New  York  say  they  are  content  to  do — 
take  care  of  their  religion  at  home.  The  most  effectual  way  to  coun- 
teract the  tendency  of  secular  knowledge  to  infidelity,  if  there  is  any 
such  tendency,  (which  I  do  not  admit,)  is  not  to  compel  the  reading 
and  hearing  of  the  Bible  in  the  Public  Schools,  but  for  the  mother 
and  the  father,  and  the  Sabbath  school  teacher,  and  the  pulpit,  to 
ply  the  youthful  heart  with  God's  truth.  Home  is  the  great  univer- 
sity of  mankind.  ''It  is  the  mother  that  moulds  the  man."  "  They 
who  rock  the  cradle,  rule  the  world." 

One  of  my  friends  argues  that  ''  It  is  the  duty  of  the  State  to 
educate  all  the  millions  of  her  sons  and  daughters,"  and  that  it  is 
the  duty  of  the  State  to  make  the  Bible  the  basis  of  that  system — 
that  "  the  Bible  ought  to  have  a  place  in  any  educational  system 
adopted  by  the  State."  His  reasoning  on  these  assumed  proposi- 
tions is  in  this  style  :  There  are  only  three  agents  by  which  the 
masses  can  be  educated,  ''  individual  effort,  the  Church  and  the 
State."  He  admits  individual  effort  has  done  something,  but  is  alto- 
gether unequal  to  the  work.  And  then  he  says :  "  Nor  can  the 
Church  do  this  work,"  and  his  conclusion  is,  the  State  must  do  it. 
If  this  be  correct,  then  we  should  have  an  established  religion,  with- 
out any  doubt.  If  this  view  is  correct,  I  shall  become  an  advocate 
for  the  union  of  Church  and  State,  as  soon  as  possible.  I  am  for 
outspoken  honesty,  and  if  we  are  to  have  the  State  turn  religious 
teacher,  I  wish  to  know  it,  and  I  wish  my  fellow-citizens  to  know  it. 
But  1  do  not  believe  that  my  friend's  position  is  a  correct  one.  He 
leaves  out  .of  view  altogether  voluntary  associated  efforts,  and  the 
family^  unless  he  includes  them  in  the  Church,  and  if  he  includes 
them  in  the  Church,  the  family  is  so  important  an  agency  that  its 
influence  and  place  ought  not  to  be  thus  overlooked.  The  Church 
of  God  cannot  do  without  the  family.  But  let  us  examine  the  reach 
of  this  argument.  The  Gospel  of  Christ  is  as  necessary  to  the  mil- 
lions of  people  in  our  country  as  the  Bible  is  to  its  children,  and  if 
individual  efforts  and  the  Church  cannot  educate  the  children,  how 
can  they  preach  the  Gospel  to  all  its  inhabitants ;  and  if  individual 
effort  and  the  Church  cannot  do  it,  is  it  then  the  duty  of  the  State 
to  turn  Evangelist  and  preach  the  Gospel  in  every  valley,  gulch  and 
mountain  ?  If  the  argument  is  good  in  one  case,  I  do  not  see  why  it 
is  not  in  the  other.  For  the  Word  of  God  is  as  necessary  to  our 
adult  population  as  it  is  to  the  children,  and  yet  hundreds  and 
thousands  in  our  State  do  not  possess  a  copy.  Must  the  Legislature, 
therefore,  buy  Bibles  and  send  out  colporteurs  ?  I  think  not.  The 
united,  associated,  voluntary  effort  of  Christians  can  and  does  supply 
the  State  with  Bibles,  and  it  is  much  better  for  it  to  be  done  in  this 
way  than  for  the  Legislature  to  do  it.     But  is  it  true  that  the  Church 


THE   CHURCH   NOT  A   FAILURE.  115 

of  God  cannot  teach  His  Word  to  our  children  ?  Is  she  not  com- 
manded to  teach  all  nations  ?  If  so,  is  this  command  given  with  the 
design  that  it  shall  be  obeyed  ?  Or  is  the  Church  appointed  by  its 
Great  Founder  to  do  a  work  she  is  not  able  to  do  ?  Did  not  Christ 
commission  his  ministering  servants  to  preach  the  Gospel  to  every 
creature  ?  And  is  not  the  Church  able  to  obey  her  Lord's  com- 
mandment? I  must  think  that  the  Founder  of  the  Church  knew 
what  was  the  design  and  reach  of  his  commission,  and  that  He  would 
not  have  appointed  the  Church  to  do  a  work  that  it  could  not  do.  It 
is  not  denied  but  that  the  Church  is  God's  great  teaching  institute. 
It  was  to  the  infant  Church  the  work  of  teaching  mankind  was  com- 
mitted. The  command  to  go  into  all  the  world  and  preach  the  Gos- 
pel was  not  given  to  the  State,  but  to  the  Church.  In  calling  little 
children  unto  Him  and  blessing  them,  our  Lord  did  not  mean  to  say 
to  His  followers,  iV/rt^e  Ccesar  educate  the  children /oi'  me.  No.  He 
means  that  the  work  should  be  done  by  His  own  professing  disciples. 
And  hence  He  made  them — not  Caesar — "  the  light  of  the  world," 
''the  salt  of  the  earth."  I  confess  candidly  that  I  have  yet  to  see 
the  first  word  in  the  New  Testament  that  authorizes  the  Church  to  throw 
herself  "  into  the  Public  Schools  (Caesar's  institutions)  and  sanctify 
and  control  the  great  movement."  I  do  not  believe  that  it  was  the 
design  of  Christ,  in  commanding  His  ministering  servants  "  to  go 
into  all  the  world  and  preach  the  Gospel  to  every  creature,  teaching 
all  nations,"  that  they  should  unite  themselves  with  the  politics  of 
the  nations,  and  employ  the  secular  arm,  the  public  money  and 
Caesar's  sword  to  build  up  His  kingdom.  Are  we  to  expect  the  con- 
version of  the  world  by  government  statutes,  or  by  the  preaching  of 
the  Word  of  God — by  the  power  of  His  Spirit  or  by  legislative  de- 
fcrees  ? 

And,  moreover,  if  the  Bible  is  used  in  the  Public  Schools,  still  a 
great  number  will  not  know  anything  about  it,  if  that  is  the  only 
channel  through  which  they  are  to  be  brought  to  its  knowledge.  We 
learn,  from  the  able  report  of  our  Superintendent,  that  over  20,000 
of  the  children  of  the  State,  between  the  age  of  four  and  eighteen 
years,  have  not  been  inside  of  a  public  school  house,  and  over  29,000 
have  in  effect  received  no  instruction  during  the  year.  I  do  not  refer 
to  this  to  show  that  our  school  law  is  defective ;  I  do  not  know  that 
any  better  or  more  efficient  system  can  be  presented ;  but  I  do  refer 
to  this  statement,  to  show  that  there  are  defects  in  all  systems  and 
imperfections  in  all  human  governments.  In  the  old  world,  where 
religious  establishments  overshadow  the  land,  there  are  millions  igno- 
rant not  only  of  the  Scriptures,  but  of  the  simplest  doctrines  of  the 
Gospel,  and  many  are  ignorant  even  of  the  name  of  Christ.  Nor  is 
this  statement  to  be  applied  only  to  the  continent.  So  serious  is  this 
defect  in  Great  Britain,  that  a  Free  Church  of  England,  in  imitation  of 
the  Free  Church  of  Scotland,  has  been  freely  discussed  for  some  years 
past.  It  is  at  least  proven  that  our  voluntary  system  has  done,  on  the 
whole,  better  for  us  than  establishments  have  done  in  the  old  world. 
13* 


116  THE   BIBLE   AND   POLITICS. 

But  there  "are  orphans  and  homeless  children,  and  children  whose 
parents  do  not  teach  them  any  religion ;  and  if  these  are  not  taught 
the  Bible  in  the  Public  Schools,  they  will  not  be  taught  it  anywhere/' 
Now,  I  do  not  see  how,  on  such  a  plea  as  this,  it  can  be  any  more  the 
duty  of  the  State  to  teach  the  children  religion  on  the  week  day  in  the 
Public  Schools,  than  it  is  to  teach  them  the  Gospel  on  the  Lord's  day. 
The  preaching  of  the  Grospel  to  them,  to  say  the  least,  is  as  necessary 
as  reading  the  Bible  to  them.  Must  the  State,  therefore,  build 
chapels  and  employ  preachers  for  such,  and  compel  them  to  come  and 
hear  ?  I  think  not.  All  human  governments  are  necessarily  imper- 
fect, and  such  children  ought  to  be  cared  for  by  the  Churches.  Are 
there  any  children,  although  poor  and  orphans  in  Heathendom,  that 
are  not  taught  the  religion  of  the  country  ?  Are  there  any  orphans 
among  the  Israelites  or  Catholics  that  are  not  cared  for  ?  The  greater 
the  number  of  such  orphans  and  neglected  children  among  us,  the 
stronger  is  the  proof  that  our  Churches  are  negligent,  and  the  louder 
the  call  for  missionary  and  Sunday  School  efforts.  And  it  was  in 
pleading  for  just  this — greater  zeal  in  teaching  our  children  religion 
at  home  and  in  our  Sabbath  Schools,  and  Denominational  Schools — 
that  I  was  led  to  allude  to  our  Public  Schools  at  all.  I  am  strongly 
inclined  to  think,  moreover,  that  there  is  some  unfairness,  exaggera- 
tion or  mistake  in  the  statistics  that  are  frequently  published  as  to 
the  number  of  children  in  the  United  States,  that  are  growing  up 
without  any  religious  instruction,  because  they  do  not  attend  Sun- 
day Schools.  I  think  the  proportion  is  overstated.  There  are  many 
children  taught  religion  at  home,  who  do  not  attend  Sunday  Schools; 
and  in  making  up  the  sum,  are  any  but  Evangelical  Protestant 
Sunday  Schools  taken  into  the  reckoning  ?  Are  not  all  Hebrew  and 
Catholic  Schools  excluded?  But  it  is  not  fair  to  say  that  all  Catho- 
lic and  Israelite  children  are  growing  up  among  us,  "perfect 
heathens  because  they  do  not  attend  our  Sunday  Schools."  I  wish 
I  could  believe  that  we  are  as  faithful  in  teaching  religion  to 
our  children  as  the  Israelites  and  Catholics  are.  I  do  not  suppose 
that  we  can  reach  every  case  of  ignorance  among  the  children  of  the 
country,  by  our  Sabbath  Schools  and  missionary  efforts,  in  a  single 
day,  but  I  am  fully  persuaded  a  great  deal  more  can  and  ought  to  be 
done  than  is  done.  The  Bible  Society  will  be  able,  I  doubt  not,  to 
put  the  Word  of  God  into  the  hands  of  every  individual  in  the  State, 
who  will  rece've  it  without  having  any  edict  from  the  Legislature  on 
the  subject.  And  I  think  the  Church  ought  and  can  preach  the 
Gospel  throughout  the  country  without  calling  upon  Caesar  for  his 
decrees.  I  have  a  great  deal  more  faith  in  the  "saddle  bags'  heroes" 
converting  the  State  than  I  have  in  the  Legislature  doing  it. 

An  argument  which  my  friends  who  oppose  my  views  seem  to 
consider  perfectly  triumphant  and  overwhelming,  and  against  which 
no  possible  answer  can  be  given,  is  this :  "  That  an  open  Bible  for 
all  people  at  all  times  is  the  will  of  God,"  and  it  is  boldly  asked, 
"Who  will  dare  to  stand  up  in  the  face  of  heaven  and  deny  it?" 


THE   BIBLE   A  TEXT -BOOK.  117 

Softly,  brethren  ;  we  do  not  deny  this  proposition.  But  how  does  it 
stand  in  relation  to  the  point  in  hand  ?  Why,  manifestly,  your  infer- 
ence from  it  is,  that  our  version  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  should  be 
used  in  the  Public  Schools.  Well,  now,  let  us  try  the  doctrine.  Is 
not  Jesus  Christ  a  Saviour  sent  from  heaven  by  "the  will  of  God, 
for  all  people  and  at  all  times  ?"  Is  it  not  the  will  of  God  "  that  all 
men  should  believe  on  Him  and  be  saved?"  And  are  you  prepared, 
therefore,  to  say,  that  the  Legislature,  or  a  Board  of  School  Direc- 
tors, by  the  authority  of  the  State,  are  to  have  a  legal  and  moral 
right  to  require  or  to  teach  faith  in  Jesus  Christ  as  a  part  of  our 
Public  School  instructions  ?  If  you  are  not  prepared  to  adopt  this 
conclusion,  then  your  argument  about  the  Bible  falls  to  the  ground ; 
and,  if  you  do  adopt  it,  then  you  are  in  favor  of  an  established  reli- 
gion. I  see  no  possible  way  to  escape  from  the  one  or  the  other  of 
these  conclusions,  according  to  your  argument.  I  do  not  believe 
that  either  is  correct,  and,  therefore,  I  am  bound  to  say  that  the 
proposition,  as  it  relates  to  the  point  at  issue,  is  "  a  fair  sophistry." 
But  it  is  clearly  laid  down  as  a  proposition,  that  ''  the  demand  for 
the  Bible  is  special  in  Common  Schools,"  because  *'  the  Bible,  as  a 
text-book,  is  indispensable."  It  is  then  not  enough  that  the  Bible 
should  be  read  at  the  opening  of  the  school ;  it  must  be  *'a  text-book." 
The  reasons  given  for  making  the  Bible  "  a  text-book"  are,  such  as 
its  literary  excellence  for  enabling  the  child  to  acquire  "  the  good 
old  Saxon."  And  yet,  in  urging  this  very  plea,  it  is  admitted  there 
are  ^^  obsolete  words  and  phrases" — "  true,  it  has  not  the  polish  and 
splendor  of  the  days  of  Addison,  nor  the  flexibility  of  modern 
rhetoric" — ''  And  that  judicious  selections  from  the  Old  and  New 
Testaments  would,  we  believe,  very  greatly  excel,  in  adaptation,  the 
elementary  school  books."  But  if  selections  are  to  be  made,  who  is 
to  do  it?  Whoever  has  this  power  is  a  spiritual  ecclesiastical  court. 
And,  after  all,  is  it  for  its  excellence,  as  a  model  of  the  English  tongue, 
that  the  Bible  is  to  be  used  ?  I  supposed  it  was  because  it  was  the  Word 
of  God — a  Revelation  of  His  will — teaching  us  what  to  do  and  believe 
in  order  that  we  may  be  saved.  If  it  is  for  its  literary  attractions, 
which  we  will  admit  to  be  as  great  as  our  eloquent  friends  can  make 
them,  that  it  is  to  be  used,  then  we  should  say.  Let  us  have  the 
selections,  and  such  selections  as  no  one  could  object  to  from  reli- 
gious scruples.  It  is  also  said,  in  urging  the  compulsory  use  of  the 
Bible,  that  "  its  historic  narratives  and  sketches  are  an  exhaustless 
variety  of  incidents,  and  the  duties  of  children  which  it  teaches  and 
the  virtues  it  inculcates,  which,  if  '^collected  together  and  properly 
classified,  they  cover  twenty-two  royal  octavo  pages."  "And  the 
curious  and  profitable  interest  in  the  arts  and  sciences,  enough  to 
make  thirty-one  pages ;" — and  of  "  stupendous  miracles,  twenty- 
nine  pages  more."  "  Look  now  at  the  history  and  genealogy  of  the 
race,  as  sketched  in  the  Holy  Bible."  And  its  contributions  in 
the  department  of  natural  history,  "  stretching  out  into  thirty-five 
pages  of  classified . scientific  facts  and  discussions,"  and  "biblical 


118  THE   BIBLE   AND   POLITICS. 

politics/'  and  "  the  metaphysics  of  the  Bible,"  and  its  "  indispen- 
sable contributions  to  ancient  geography."     "  The  Bible  a  text-book 
of  surprising  adaptation  for  teaching  the  art  of  reading."     These 
quotations,  I  believe,  set  forth  fairly  the  strength  of  the  argument 
for  making  the  Bible  ''  a  text-book."     It  is  true,  however,  that  it  is 
new  to  me,  that  we  have  "  thirty-five  pages  of  classijied  scientific 
facts  and  discussions  in  the  Bible."     Nor  did  I  know  before,  that  our 
children  went  to  the  Public  Schools  to  learn- ^'biblical  politics,"  or 
*'  the  metaphysics  of  the  Bible,"  or  that  they  were  to  use  the  Bible 
as  a  text-book  to  teach  them  "  the  art  of  reading."     I  have  no  ob- 
jections to  the  use  of  selections  from  the  Bible,  nor  to  the  use  of  the 
whole  Bible,  if  all  concerned  in  a  Public  School  are  agreed,  and  I 
am  ready  to  assent  to  the  great  merit  of  its  literature ;  but  I  insist  upon 
it,  that  before  we  incorporate  into  our  Public  School  laws  a  statute 
requiring  the  use  of  the  Bible,  we  should  know  how  it  is  to  be  used, 
and  for  what  purpose  taught.     I  have  supposed,  from  the  great  number 
of  pleas  and  exhortations  that  I  have  met  with  for  the  Bible  in  the  Pub- 
lic Schools,  that  the  great  reason  why  it  must  be  so  used,  is,  that  it  is 
the  Word  of  God,  and  teaches  our  holy  religion  and  the  way  to  be  saved. 
To  the  argument,  therefore,  that  the  Bible  must  be  a  text-book  because 
of  its  literary  attractions,  "  politics,"  "  geography,"  "  metaphysics," 
and  because  it  is  "  the   grand    text-book    of  citizenship,"   1  have 
nothing  farther  to  say,  except  that  I  think,  for  such  purposes,  a  se- 
lection from  the  Bible  much  better  than  the  whole  Bible,  and  that 
such  selections  are  to  be  found  in  many  elementary  works  already 
prepared.     But  as  this  is  changing  the  ground  altogether   from  a 
spiritual  platform  to  a  civil  one,  I  shall  only  add,  that  it  seems  to  me, 
the  best  way  for  the  State,  even  on  this  platform,  is  to  pursue  the 
same  policy  it  does  on  other  subjects.     Guarantee  the  right  of  liberty 
and  the  pursuit  of  happiness,  and  leave  it  to  individual  and  associated 
efforts  to  teach  religion.     I  believe  it  is  found  that,  with  all  the  ap- 
pliances of  the  government,  still  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy  can  go 
into  the  market  and  buy  or  have  built  a  better  ship  and  with  less 
cost  than  he  can  build  one  in  the  government  docks.     Private  enter- 
prise, stimulated  by  competition,  is  more  than  a  rival  for  the  govern- 
ment itself.     I  must,  therefore,  think  that  the  efficiency  of  individual 
efforts  and   of  united   action  among  our  churches  and  missionary 
bodies  is  not  sufficiently  appreciated  by  those  who  are  depending  so 
much  on  legislative  favors.     No  other  body  but  the  Church  is  com- 
petent to  teach  religion.     No  other  way  than  this  is  practicable.    As 
individuals  we  have  our  religious  views,  and  however  diversified  they 
may  be,  as  citizens  we  harmonize,  while  each  one  allows  his  neighbor 
to  enjoy  the  same  liberty  which  he  claims  for  himself     And  repre- 
sentatives in  the  government  act  for  their  constituents.     They  are 
chosen  "  to  represent  their  political  and  not  their  religious  views ; 
to  guard  the  rights  of  man,  not  to  restrict  the  rights  of  conscience. 
The  principles  of  our  government  do  not  recognize  in  the  majority 
any  authority  over  the  minority,  except  in  matters  which  regard  the 


RANDOLPH  AND   ADAMS.  119 

conduct  of  man  to  his  fellow-man."*  It  is  clearly,  then,  contrary  to 
all  our  American  principles  to  ask  the  government  to  show  favor  or 
preference  to  any  version  or  sect  or  form  of  worship. 

That  morality  and  piety  are  taught  by  the  Bible,  and  that  its  prin- 
ciples are  good  and  holy,  do  not  prove  anything  to  the  point  at  issue, 
unless  they  prove  more,  namely :  that  the  whole  work  of  education 
is  to  be  made  an  ecclesiastical  work,  and  the  State  is  to  assume  the 
functions  of  the  Church.  But  that  the  government  of  the  schools 
cannot  be  successfully  carried  on  without  the  reading  of  the  Bible,  we 
are  disposed  to  deny.  It  may  at  least  be  well  to  in(|uire  whether  the 
police  of  the  best  cities  and  armies  is  in  any  way  connected  with  the 
reading  of  the  Bible ;  and  whether  the  efficiency  and  power  of  the 
English  and  French  nations  are  to  be  ascribed  to  prayers  at  the 
morning  sessions  of  the  Parliament  and  of  the  National  Council. 
I  am  perfectly  satisfied  that  it  is  a  delusion  to  say  that  if  we  have  a 
few  verses  of  the  Word  of  God  read  in  our  Public  Schools,  that 
thereby,  we  shall  secure  the  religious  education  of  the  children. 
Was  it  the  reading  of  the  Bible  in  the  school  that  saved  Randolph 
of  Roanoke,  and  John  Adams  from  being  infidels  ?  They  have  both 
ascribed  their  religious  belief  to  their  mothers.  As  to  the  argument, 
therefore,  that  the  Bible  must  be  used  in  the  schools  because  of  its 
moral  influence,  we  may  just  as  well  say,  the  Bible  must  be  read  in 
the  Police  Court,  and  in  the  Legislature,  and  before  the  Supreme 
Court.  And  as  our  constables,  sheriffs,  judges  and  editors,  and 
heads  of  business  houses,  have  more  moral  influence  than  many  of  the 
teachers  of  our  schools,  must  every  constable  and  editor,  and  legis- 
lator, and  all  men  who  make  money,  and  who  control  the  public  tastes, 
be  catechized  as  to  their  reading  of  the  Bible  before  they  are  elected 
or  allowed  to  pursue  their  business  ?  As  the  inspiration  of  the  Holy 
Scriptures  is  not  involved  in  this  discussion,  I  do  not  see  how  it  is  an 
argument  for  compelling  the  use  of  the  Bible  in  the  Schools  to  say 
that  it  is  "  a  communication  from  God  to  man."  Christians  believe 
that  Jesus  Christ  was  sent  from  heaven  to  save  mankind,  but  that 
does  not  authorize  us  to  compel  the  children  of  our  Public  Schools 
to  hear  a  sermon  on  the  incarnation  every  morning.  Millions  believe 
Mohammed  to  have  come  from  God  as  his  greatest  prophet.  Is  that 
belief  a  sufficient  authority  for  the  State  to  place  the  Koran  in  the 
schools  ?  There  is  no  application  or  force  in  the  argument  that  the 
Bible  is  a  communication  from  God  to  man,  and  that  it  is  His  will 
that  all  men  should  at  all  times  receive  it;  for  placing  it  in  the  schools, 
that  does  not  require  Christ  crucified,  to  be  preached  daily  in 
the  schools.  Judge  Story,  who  is  the  oracle  of  my  friends,  takes  the 
ground,  openly  and  broadly,  that  "  the  State  must  interfere  in  mat- 
ters of  religion,"  because  "  piety,  religion  and  morality  are  indispen- 
sable to  the  administration  of  civil  justice."  Is  this  the  ground  to 
be  occupied  by  the  advocates  of  compelling  the  use  of  the  Bible  ? 
It  is  foreign  to  my  purpose,  in  this  tractate,  to  discuss  either  the 

*  Report  in  the  Senate.    Am.  State  Papers,  toL  xt,  p.  229. 


120  THE    BIBLE    AND    POLITICS. 

right  of  a  State  of  the  American  Union  to  establish  a  religion,  or 
the  abstract  question  of  such  establishments.  The  only  point  that 
I  consider  pertinent  at  present  is  this :  Did  the  people  of  California, 
when  they  adopted  the  Constitution,  and  when  they  empowered  their 
Legislature  to  enact  the  school  laws,  suppose  and  intend  to  require 
or  allow  the  State  to  teach  piety  and  religion  ?  I  do  not  suppose 
that  any  one  will  seriously  maintain  any  such  an  idea.  The  fourth 
section  of  the  Declaration  of  Rights,  which  is  a  part  of  the  Consti- 
tution, says  :  ''  The  free  exercise  and  enjoyment  of  religious  profes- 
sion and  worship,  without  discrimination  or  preference,  shall  forever 
be  allowed  in  this  State  ;  and  no  person  shall  be  rendered  incompe- 
tent to  be  a  witness  on  account  of  his  opinions  on  matters  of  religious 
belief."  Now,  how  can  this  be  reconciled  with  Judge  Story's  right 
of  the  State  to  interfere  in  matters  of  religion  ?  And  to  ask  how  a 
law  requiring  the  use  of  the  Protestant  Bible  in  the  Public  Schools 
interferes  with  "  the  free  exercise  and  enjoyment  of  religious  profes- 
sion and  worship,"  is  an  insult  to  one's  common  sense.  For,  how 
can  an  exercise  and  worship  be  free  that  is  by  constraint  of  law  ? 
How  can  a  law  require  the  FroteMant  Bible  to  be  read  without  making 
discrimination  and  preference  ?  And  how  can  a  teacher,  whose  con- 
science does  not  allow  him  to  read  the  Protestant  Bible,  and  whose 
church  forbids  him  to  read  it,  have  the  free  exercise  and  enjoyment 
of  religious  profession  and  worship  in  a  public  school,  the  directors 
of  which  require  the  use  of  that  Bible  ?  And  how  can  any  Board 
of  Directors  require  such  a  religious  test  ?  How  can  they  hinder  a 
teacher  from  "  acquiring  and  possessing  property,"  and  from  pursu- 
ing and  obtaining  safety  and  happiness"  as  a  teacher,  on  account  ot 
his  religious  opinions  and  convictions  ?  It  is  impossible  for  any 
Legislature,  or  any  Board  of  School  Directors  to  require  a  religious 
test  in  the  teachers  of  the  Public  Schools,  or  to  deny  them  the  pur- 
suit of  happiness  and  the  acquirement  of  the  means  of  life  in  the 
Public  Schools,  on  account  of  their  religious  conscience,  without 
violating  their  sacred  inalienable  rights.  And,  if  once  it  becomes 
the  prevailing  doctrine  that  the  State  may  thus  *^  interfere  in  matters 
of  religion,"  and  the  Bible  is  used  by  compulsion,  then  the  next 
thing  will  be  the  use  of  the  catechism  and  the  prayer-book.  If  the 
State  can  interfere  and  discriminate  between  versions,  and  select  a 
Bible,  it  may  do  the  same  in  regard  to  catechisms  and  Bible  readers, 
and  the  State  Schools  will  become  wholly  sectarian  institutions.  Let 
us  see  how  this  rule  would  work.  Suppose  Mr.  Judah  is  examined 
and  passed  as  a  qualified  teacher  of  all  the  arts  and  sciences,  and 
branches  of  a  secular  education,  but  when  he  is  about  to  retire,  the 
President  of  the  school  committee  says,  and  it  is  required  of  you  to 
read  the  Bible  and  offer  prayers  every  day  in  the  school.  And  Mr. 
Judah,  like  Mordecai,  says  I  cannot  do  so,  ^'  because  I  am  a  Jew." 
And  Mr.  Owen  says,  I  cannot  consistently  do  so,  for  I  am  a  Deist, 
or,  I  believe  in  the  Book  of  Mormon,  or  in  the  Koran.  And  what 
will  the  commissioners  do  ?     The  American  doctrine  is  that,  no  reli- 


THE   AMERICAN   DOCTRINE.  121 

gious  test  can  he  required  ]  no  hindrance  is  to  he  offered  to  the  free 
exercise  of  religious  profession  and  worship  ;  and  no  discrimination 
or  preference  can  he  shoicn  hetween  the  religions  of  American  citizens. 
Clearly,  then,  these  teachers  cannot  be  prevented  constitutionally  from 
occupying  their  places  on  account  of  their  religious  opinions,  nor 
can  their  religious  conscience  be  distressed  by  compelling  them  to 
perform  such  religious  services.  I  ask  any  candid  man  if  there  is 
any  fallacy  in  this  reasoning. 


XIX. 

What  Christianity  asks  of  Co'.sar. 

*'  Our  young  wild  land,  the  free,  the  proud  I 

Uncrush'd  by  power,  unawed  by  fear ; 
Her  knee  to  none  but  God  is  bow'd, 

For  nature  teaches  Freedom  here." — Street. 

"Nous  n'avons  aucun  empire  sur  la  religion,  parcequ'on  ne  peut  forcer  la 
croyance." — The  Golden  Words  of  Theodoric,  the  Ostrogoth. 

"  It  is  the  glory  of  Christianity,  that  it  prevailed  by  its  own  purity,  with  no 
other  force,  but  a  torrent  of  arguments  and  the  demonstration  of  the  Holy 
Spirit." — John  Sturffion's  plea  for  toleration,  addressed  to  Charles  II. 

The  venerable  Archbishop  of  Dublin  has  said  that  a  proneness  for 
over- governing,  is  a  kind  of  puerility  that  characterizes  the  earlier 
stages  of  civilization  and  of  inexperienced  law-makers.  Young  legis- 
lators naturally  wish  to  enforce  every  good  thing,  and  prevent  every- 
thing they  consider  evil  by  law.  But  I  am  inclined  to  think  that  a 
fair  examination  of  human  history  shows  that,  by  far,  more  evil  has 
been  done  by  too  much  legislation  rather  than  by  too  little.  Man- 
kind has  been  altogether  too  much  governed.  Meddlesome  legisla- 
tion is  one  of  the  greatest  evils  that  has  ever  befallen  our  race. 
Oftentimes,  more  harm  is  done  by  attempting  to  do  by  law,  what  is 
not  fairly  within  its  province,  than  would  have  resulted  from  no  law 
on  the  subject.  The  history  of  the  curfew  bell,  and  of  sumptuary 
laws,  and  of  "Maine-liquor  laws,''  *^and  of  usury  laws,"  is,  if  1 
am  not  very  much  mistaken,  in  proof  that  all  such  laws  are  not  only 
galling,  but  altogether  ineffectual.  Unless  there  is  a  moral  sentiment 
strong  enough  to  sustain  such  laws,  they  are  sure  to  be  evaded,  and 
this  evasion  is  a  high  demoralization.  The  same  thing  is  true  of 
laws  against  duelling  and  gambling.  •But  you  tell  me,  Christianity 
is  a  great  reformer  and  the  only  true  civilizer,  and,  therefore,  we 
must  make  laws  in  its  favor.  And  I  answer,  as  the  great  Robert 
Hall  said  in  his  address  to  the  missionary  Carey,  who  was  going  to 
convert  the  Heathen,  "  it  is  only  when  Christianity  is  allowed  to  de- 


122  THE   BIBLE   AND   POLITICS. 

velop  the  energies  by  which  she  sanctifies,  that  she  ameliorates  man's 
present  condition. '^  The  universal  prevalence  of  the  Gospel  will 
convert  this  world  into  a  semi-paradisaical  state;  but  if  Christianity 
forget  her  celestial  origin  and  destiny,  that  she  came  from  God  and 
that  her  kingdom  is  not  of  this  world,  then  she  is  shorn  of  her  power 
and  has  nothing  but  a  bare  and  sanctimonious  hypocrisy. 

Our  Lord's  command,  to  render  unto  Caesar  the  things  that  are 
Caesar's,  neither  makes  a  Caesar,  nor  tells  us  who  Caesar  is,  but  only 
requires  us  to  give  him  those  things  which  the  laws  have  determined 
to  be  his,  unless  they  require  as  his  what  belongs  to  God ;  and  then, 
the  duty  is  plain  :  but  ^^  render  unto  God  the  things  which  are  God's." 

In  a  memorial  of  the  Presbytery  of  Hanover  to  the  General  Assem- 
bly of  the  State  of  Virginia,  in  1777,  we  have  the  following  remarka- 
ble deliverance  on  the  subject  of  religious  liberty : 

"In  the  fixed  belief  of  this  principle,  that  the  kingdom  of  Christ 
and  the  concerns  of  religion  are  beyond  the  limits  of  civil  control, 
we  should  act  a  dishonest,  inconsistent  part,  were  we  to  receive  any 
emoluments  from  human  establishments  for  the  support  of  the 
Gospel." 

And  again,  in  1784,  they  say: 

"  We  conceive  that  human  legislation  ought  to  have  human  affairs 
alone  for  its  concerns.  Legislators  in  free  States  possess  delegated 
authority,  for  the  good  of  the  comnmnity  at  large,  in  its  political  or 
civil  capacity.  The  existence,  preservation  and  happiness  of  society 
should  be  their  only  object;  and  to  this,  their  public  cares  should  be 
confined.  Whatever  is  not  materially  connected  with  this,  lies  not 
within  their  province  as  statesmen.  The  thoughts,  the  intentions, 
the  faith  and  the  consciences  of  men,  with  their  modes  of  worship, 
lie  beyond  their  reach  and  are  ever  to  be  referred  to  a  higher  and 
more  penetrating  tribunal.  These  internal  and  spiritual  matters  can- 
not be  measured  by  human  rules,  nor  be  amenable  to  human  laws. 
It  is  the  duty  of  every  man,  for  himself,  to  take  care  of  his  immortal 
interest  in  a  future  State,  where  we  are  to  account  for  our  conduct  as 
individuals ;  and  it  is  by  no  means  the  business  of  a  Legislature  to 
attend  to  this,  for  these  Governments  and  States  as  collective  bodies 
shall    no   more  be   known."  * 

The  Fathers  were  certainly  correct  in  discriminating  between  the 
key  and  the  sword,  and  also  between  the  keys  of  Heaven  and  law 
pleas.  In  the  hands  of  Christ's  ministers,  the  keys  imply  nothing  more 
than  the  power  of  preaching  His  word  and  administering  His  sacra- 
ments, and  declaring  in  His  name  that  penitence,  and  faith,  and  obe- 
dience, are  the  terms  of  pardon  and  life  everlasting.  It  is  to  civil 
government  God  has  intrusted  Justice  :  "  Deus  judicium  suum  Regi 
dedit."  And  when  Solomon  •became  King,  his  prayer  was :  ^^  Cor 
intelligens,  ut  populuni  suum  judicare  posset,"  and  this  choice  was 
acceptable  to  God.  Jerome  was  quite  right,  therefore,  when  he  said, 
that  ^^Regum  proprium  officium  est  facere  Judicium  et  justitiamj* 

*  The  Presbytery  of  Hanover  of  the  Presbyterian  CJhurch  to  the  Assembly  of  the  State  of 
Virginia,  1784. 


THE   CHtTROH   FATHERS.  123 

Throughout  sacred  history,  an  instance  is  not  known  in  which  the 
administration  of  justice  is  given  to  priests  as  such;  it  is  always  at- 
tributed to  civil  rulers.  Christ  himself  expressly  said,  that  He  was 
not  a  judge  and  a  divider  between  brothers;  He  did  not  come  to  in- 
terfere in  civil  affairs.  For  four  or  five  hundred  years,  certainly  up 
to  the  reign  of  Constantine,  priests  were  reckoned  as  members  of 
civil  society,  and  amenable  to  civil  magistrates,  as  well  in  civil  as  in 
criminal  causes.  It  was  not  until  the  polity  of  the  Church  was  formed 
after  that  of  the  Empire,  that  priests  and  bishops  obtained  the  power 
of  trying  causes  and  ruling  as  secular  princes.  And  it  was  then,  the 
civil  power  and  secular  arm  were  made  propagandists  of  the  Gospel 
of  Peace.  But  we  do  not  believe  Christianity  required  or  approved 
of  this,  for  Christ  ordained  a  complete  system  of  laws  for  the  govern- 
ment of  His  Church,  and  for  its  support,  and  for  the  propagation  of 
the  Grospel,  independent  of  the  State.  It  was  to  His  followers,  and 
not  to  the  State,  He  gave  his  great  commission  to  preach  the  Gospel 
to  every  creature. 

When  our  Lord  says,  his  "  kingdom  is  not  of  this  world,"  He  does 
not  mean  that  He  has  not  authority  over  this  world,  for  He  says  in 
another  place,  "  all  power  in  heaven  and  in  earth  is  given  unto  me." 
He  means,  no  doubt,  that  His  kingdom  is  not  of,  not  derived  from, 
nor  founded  on  the  principles  or  maxims  of  this  world,  nor  to  be 
propagated  and  sustained  by  carnal  weapons. 

Although  the  Ecclesiastical  State  was  settled  in  splendor  by 
Constantine,  yet  down  to  the  reign  of  Justinian  the  Emperor,  it  did 
not  go  beyond  the  bounds  of  spiritual  power  in  the  cognizance  of 
causes.  It  was  still  confined  to  matters  of  religion  and  faith.  The 
Church  could  only  censure  and  settle  differences  among  Christians. 
Such  differences  were  decided  by  '^  arbitration  and  charitable  recon- 
ciliation." As  yet  the  Church  had  no  Court  of  Justice,  nor  temporal 
jurisdiction — no  Justicia  Contentiosa.  The  only  power  claimed  over 
the  souls  of  men  was  that  of  persuasion.  So  taught  Chrysostom, 
Lactantius,  Cassiodorus,  Bernardus,  and  others.  They  loudly  afiirmed 
that  no  power  had  been  given  to  them  to  hinder  men  from  committing 
faults,  by  the  authority  of  decrees :  "  non  est  nobis  data  talis  potestas, 
ut  authoritate  sentential  cohibeamus  homines  a  delictisy'  saja 
Chrysostom.  They  declared  that  "all  their  power  consisted  in  ex- 
horting,  persuading,  and  prai/ing,  but  not  in  commanding."* 

The  civil  government  is  limited  to  conduct;  it  has  no  jurisdiction 
over  the  soul.  It  may  attempt  to  enforce  uniformity,  but  it  cannot 
control  the  inward  thoughts.  The  attempt  to  do  so  is  preposterous. 
Galileo  may  be  tortured  until  his  lips  utter  what  he  does  not  believe, 
and  still  his  opinion  will  be  that  the  world  does  move.  I  see  not 
how  a  man  can  renounce  the  freedom  of  opinion,  nor  that  he  has  a 
right  to  do  so,  if  he  could. 

The  civil  government  cannot  rightfully  operate  upon  opinions.  No 
man,  nor  body  of  men,  can  judge  of  the  thoughts  or  secret  purposes 

*  See  Pietro  Qiannone's  Civil  His.  of  Naples,  Ist  vol.,  2  Book,  sec.  iii,  and  the  authorities 
therein  referred  to.    This  is  a  remarkably  valuable  book. 


124  THE   BIBLE   AND   POLITICS. 

of  others.  Nor  are  matters  intellectual,  as  old  Jeremy  Taylor  ex- 
pressed it,  ^'  cognoscible  by  the  secular  power."  Nor  are  matters  of 
doubtful  disputation,  as  are  many  of  the  articles  that  separate 
Christian  sects,  to  be  cause  of  corporeal  punishment  or  civil  disability. 
*'God  alone  is  the  judge,  who  alone  is  master  of  our  souls,  and  hath 
a  dominion  over  the  human  understanding." 

Our  government  has  nothing  to  do  with  us  as  moral  agents.  It 
knows  us  only  as  citizens.  It  cannot  take  any  cognizance,  therefore, 
of  my  moral  conduct,  or  of  my  o^imons,  political  or  religious,  except 
as  they  are  expressed  in  my  conduct.  As  it  is  not  given  to  any  human 
government  to  fix  the  standard  of  moral  right,  or  declare  what  true 
religion  is,  so  it  does  not  belong  to  any  human  government  to  interfere 
with  my  liberty  of  choice  as  to  what  I  shall  believe.  The  extent  of  a 
human  government  is  to  fix  the  boundary  of  legal  right  and  wrong. 
Moral  right  and  wrong  are  proven  by  the  will  of  Grod.  Our  accounta- 
bility to  civil  government  ceases  at  death.  Its  province  lies  wholly 
on  this  side  of  the  grave.  But  our  accountability  as  moral  free  agents 
extends  to  eternity,  and  brings  us  as  individuals  before  the  judgment 
seat  of  the  Eternal  Grod.  See  the  second  lecture  of  Walker  on 
American  law,  and  the  eighth  chapter  of  this  tractate. 

It  is,  moreover,  unreasonable  and  vain  to  attempt  to  force  matters  of 
religion.  It  is  unreasonable  to  deny  men  the  use  of  their  reason,  for 
whatever  evidence  or  motives  are  presented,  reason  is  the  judge,  and  by 
its  use  only  can  we  take  cognizance  of  religion.  And  force  is  vain,  for  no 
man  has  power  over  the  understanding  or  conscience  of  his  fellow 
man.  The  great  Theodoric  said  truly,  when  he  was  trying  to  soothe 
the  rage  of  the  Arians  against  the  orthodox  :  "  No  belief  is  carried 
forward  by  blows."  The  tyrant  may  indeed  put  chains  on  the  body, 
but  the  mind  is  free.  Paul  "  reasoned  of  righteousness,  temperance, 
and  a  judgment  to  come,"  before  Felix,  and  preached  before  Festus 
and  Agrippa  in  bonds.  Force  or  bribery  may  make  hypocrites,  but 
cannot  make  men  honest  or  acceptable  to  God.  I  consider,  moreover, 
the  use  of  the  civil  authority  for  placing  the  Bible  in  the  schools,  a 
reflection  upon  the  power  of  the  Gospel.  It  is  doing  for  the  Gospel 
what  it  does  not  ask  us  to  do  in  its  behalf.  God  is  not  worshipped 
with  strange  fire  upon  his  altar.  It  is  by  the  preaching  of  the  Word 
of  God,  and  not  by  imperial  decrees,  the  world  is  to  be  converted. 
The  Koran  may  require  the  sword,  and  establishments  may  require 
constables  to  collect  their  tithes,  but  it  is  a  serious  disparagement  of 
the  Gospel  to  promote  it  by  violence.  It  is  not  given  to  the  secular 
power,  even  if  it  is  in  the  hands  of  Christian  men,  to  be  a  striker  for 
their  own  or  the  religious  faith  of  others ;  "  for  God  alone  is  Lord  of 
the  conscience,"  and  His  law  alone  is  Supreme,  for  it  binds  in  foro 
conscientice  as  well  as  in  foro  exteriori. 

The  duty  we  owe  our  Creator,  and  the  manner  of  discharging  it, 
can  only  be  directed  by  reason  and  conviction — by  light  and  con- 
science— and  not  by  force  or  violence.  No  human  laws  should  inter- 
vene between  the  soul  and  its  Maker.     The  conscience  is  God's  seat, 


god's  worship  must  be  free.        125 

and  the  Church  is  His  Son's  temple,  and  no  human  legislator  should 
dare  to  desecrate  the  latter,  nor  human  power  undertake  to  control 
the  former.  The  soul  comes  from  tlie  Eternal  Father,  and  returns 
to  Him.  The  State  may  provide  for  its  entrance  into  the  world,  take 
charge  of  the  body  and  civil  rights  of  man  at  his  birth,  and  protect 
him  till  he  dies,  and  then  bury  or  embalm  his  body,  but  it  can  do  no 
more.  Its  jurisdiction  does  not  extend  beyond  the  grave.  It  were 
well,  then,  to  settle  it  clearly  in  our  minds  whether  in  our  desire  for 
legislation  in  behalf  of  Christianity,  we  are  not  zealous  above  what 
is  written — running  before  we  are  sent — and  subjecting  ourselves 
justly  to  the  stern  rebuke  of  the  Master,  saying,  "  Who  hath  required 
this  at  your  hand  V  Is  not  obedience  better  than  sacrifices  not  ap- 
pointed ?  It  is,  moreover,  perfectly  plain  from  our  history,  that 
Christianity  does  not  need  promotion  nor  support  from  the  State. 
Our  history  proves  that  the  peace  and  order  of  society  are  promoted 
by  allowing  every  one  to  worship  God  in  the  way  that  is  most  agree- 
able to  him.  No  human  authority  can  bind  an  enlightened  conscience. 
^'  The  Almighty  Creator  is  the  only  Lord  of  the  conscience,  and  in  His 
Holy  Word  he  has  given  no  authority  to  any  man,  or  body  of  men,  to 
control  its  dictates.'"^ 

Our  experience  as  Americans  proves,  that  entire  liberty  of  con- 
science is  not  only  compatible  with  the  existence  and  safety  of  religion, 
but  "  that  true  Christianity  operates  with  the  greatest  energy,  and 
prevails  in  its  greatest  purity,  where  the  Church  relies,  under  the 
grace  of  its  Lord  and  Saviour,  on  nothing  to  sustain  and  advance  its 
interests,  but  the  power  of  truth  and  goodness,  and  the  impartial  ex- 
ercise of  its  own  spiritual  discipline."  The  worship  of  God  must  be 
free,  and  according  to  the  dictates  of  conscience,  or  it  is  not  the  true 
worship  which  the  Gospel  requires,  but  base  hypocrisy.  Human 
power  may  extort  sacrifices,  but  God  alone  can  command  the 
aiFections. 

It  were  well,  also,  to  remember  that  the  rights  of  conscience 
have  been,  in  times  past,  the  most  successfully  assailed  under  the 
pretext  of  advancing  religion.  The  flame  and  faggot  have  done  their 
work,  professedly  for  the  glory  of  God.  We  cannot,  therefore,  be 
too  jealous  of  the  advances  of  the  State.  For  if  it  be  true,  as  has 
been  said,  that  the  whole  human  race,  with  the  exception  of  the 
United  States,  is  in  religious  bondage,  how  has  it  come  to  be  so  ? 
Why,  just  in  this  way,  statutes  and  decrees,  bayonets  and  taxes, 
have  been  multiplied  and  multiplied,  on  the  plea  of  making  the  peo- 
ple moral  and  religious,  until  the  whole  inner  life  is  well  nigh  crushed 
out.  *^  If  a  solemn  act  of  legislation  shall,  in  one  point,  define  the 
law  of  God,  or  point  out  to  the  citizen  ojie  religious  duty,  it  may, 
with  equal  propriety,  proceed  to  define  ever^  part  of  divine  revela- 
tion, and  enforce  every  religious  obligation,  even  to  the  forms  and 

*  See  Acta  of  the  General  Assembly  of  1830,  and  Confession  of  Faith  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church,  passim. 


126  THE   BIBLE   AND   POLITICS. 

ceremonies  of  worship,  the  endowment  of  the  Church,  and  the  sup- 
port of  the  clergy."* 

We  must  remember,  also,  that  Religious  Despotism  commences 
by  combinations,  and  then  operates  upon  the  political  institutions  of 
the  country,  and  the  civil  power  bends  under  it.  Extensive  religious 
combinations,  to  effect  a  political  object,  are  always  dangerous.  And 
when  the  government  submits  to  them,  a  principle  is  introduced, 
subversive  of  the  Constitution  and  of  the  religious  rights  of  the  citizens. 
And  if,  from  the  stress  of  such  combinations,  the  Legislature  is  in- 
duced to  define  which  day  is  to  be  kept  as  a  Sabbath,  or  to  vote  away 
the  moneys  of  the  State  for  a  chaplain,  or  a  school  that  teaches  any 
sectarian  creed,  then  it  may  be  consistent  for  it  to  build  houses  of 
worship  and  to  support  pastors,  and,  in  fact,  do  all  that  a  governmeift 
can  do  for  the  maintenance  of  an  .established  Church.  The  evils 
that  follow  from  such  a  precedent,  are  so  numerous  that  there  is  no 
other  alternative  left  but  to  consider  the  government  as  "  a  civil  in- 
stitution, wholly  destitute  of  religious  authority."  "  Our  Constitu- 
tion recognizes  no  other  power  than  that  of  persuasion  for  enforcing 
religious  observances.  Let  the  professors  of  Christianity  recommend 
their  religion  by  deeds  of  benevolence ;  by  Christian  meekness ;  by 
lives  of  temperance  and  holiness.  Let  them  combine  their  efforts  to 
instruct  the  ignorant ;  to  relieve  the  widow  and  the  orphan ;  to  pro- 
mulgate to  the  world  the  Gospel  of  their  Saviour,  and  recommending 
its  precepts  by  their  habitual  examples.  Government  will  fi,nd  its 
legitimate  object  in  protecting  them."* 

There  is  such  a  thing  as  doing  an  act,  in  itself  good,  in  such  a 
way  as  to  do  more  harm  than  good.  It  were  better,  infinitely  better, 
to  let  some  evils  go  uncorrected,  than  to  correct  them  in  such  a  way 
as  to  produce  greater  evils.  If  the  tares  are  growing  so  thickly  and 
with  roots  so  intermingled  that  they  cannot  be  pulled  up  without 
disturbing  the  wheat,  then  we  must  let  both  grow  together  to  the 
harvest.  Drunkenness,  and  Sabbath-breaking,  and  licentiousness, 
and  shedding  of  blood  by  violence  are  great  sins,  and  it  may  be 
within  the  power  of  the  Legislature  and  of  the  Courts  and  the  Police 
to  prevent  them,  or,  at  least,  diminish  the  number  of  occasions  for 
the  commission  of  such  offenses ;  but  it  is  always  the  duty  of  the 
Legislature  to  consider  whether  a  greater  evil  is  not  committed  than 
they  have  prevented,  by  legislating  for  the  suppression  of  vice  and 
the  promotion  of  morals,  by  teaching  the  community  to  rely  upon 
compulsory  statutes  for  its  morality  and  piety,  and  not  upon  con- 
science. Of  course  wise  laws  are  necessary,  and  they  must  be  obeyed, 
but  this  point  is  to  be  thoroughly  studied ;  and  the  more  so,  since 
our  laws  are  the  emanations  of  the  popular  will.  For  whatever 
others  may  do,  we  cannot  rely  upon  anything  but  principle  and  in- 
lelligence  for  our  national  morality.  It  does  not  follow  that,  because 
the  social  state  is  an  ordination  of  God,  that  the  State  is  charged  with 
the  duty  of  maintaining  religion.  Our  Constitution  and  laws  cannot 
recognize  any  form  of  religion,  nor  the  ministers  of  any  religion,  in  any 

*  Am.  state  Papers,  vol.  xv,  230, 


HOW   THE   APOSTLES   DID.  127 

way  of  discrimination  and  preference,  over  those  of  any  other.  It  is 
clearlyimpracticable,  then,  for  the  State  to  touch  a  dollar  of  the  public 
money  for  the  support  of^eligion,  directly  or  indirectly.  Nor  is  there 
any  absolute  necessity,  in  the  nature  of  things,  nor  in  the  nature  of 
Christianity,  nor  in  the  elements  of  a  State,  that  requires  the  Church 
and  State  to  be  united,  or  wholly  disconnected.  They  have  been  united, 
and  they  have  been  separated,  and  independent.  They  may  coexist  and 
be  mutually  independent,  or  the  one  may  be  absolutely  in  subjection 
to  the  other.  These  remarks  might  be  greatly  extended ;  but  my 
only  design  here  is,  to  show  that  the  religious  element  in  man  is 
something  so  essentially  dififerent  and  distinct  from  his  social  and 
political  constitution,  that,  although  some  political  and  social  condi- 
tions are  more  favorable  for  its  development  than  others,  that  yet  it 
cannot  be  wholly ^jtinguished  in  any.  The  political  element  is  also 
distinct  from  thWreligious  element  in  society,  yet  the  greatest 
strength  of  a  nation  is  only  attained  and  made  permanent  when  they 
are  the  most  harmoniously  united.  But  this  harmony  is  not  at- 
tained by  m^  legislative  statutes  or  coftrt  rituals.  The  apostles  did 
not  call  upon  the  secular  ar^  to  propagate  their  religion,  nor  to  put 
down  prevailing  abominations.  Their  commission  was  general,  and 
they  were  possessed  of  miraculous  power ',  yet  they  never  asked  for 
the  civil  power  to  establish  their  faith.  Nor  did  our  Lord  teach  that 
thfe  secular  arm  was  to  be  employed  in  establishing  his  kingdom. 
The  civil  power  is  a  very  improper  engine  to  be  employed  in  a  work 
of  this  nature.  "■  All  the  service  which  the  princes  of  this  world 
can  do  to  rehgion,  is  not  to  intermeddle  with  it  at  all,  so  as  to  inter- 
rupt the  reformation  which  might  take  place  in  it  from  natural  and 
proper  causes,  and  for  this  negative  assistance  the  friends  of  religion 
would  think  themselves  under  the  greatest  obligations  to  civil  gov- 
ernment.'^ 

I  am  persuaded  that  the  failing  to  discriminate,  in  times  past  by, 
the  friends  of  an  orderly  and  quiet  day  of  rest  between  the  religious 
and  civil  relations  of  the  Lord's  day,  has  been  the  cause  of  much 
confusion  and  of  some  bitterness  of  feeling  on  the  subject.  If  I  .am 
not  greatly  mistaken,  those  who  are  most  zealous  for  Sunday  laws  are 
beginning  to  see  that,  under  our  Constitution,  no  laws  can  be  made 
for  the  observance  of  the  day  in  a  religious  sense;  that  is,  that  the 
magistracy  can  do  nothing  but  protect  citizens  from  outrages  and 
nuisances  in  worshipping  God,  leaving  them  free  to  worship  God  or 
not  as  they  may  be  prompted  by  conscience  and  a  sense  of  duty.  As 
a  police  regulation,  or  mere  municipal  law,  and  having  regard  to  the 
sanitary  and  economical  well-being  of  society,  I  think  there  is  no 
doubt  but  the  Legislature  has  the  right,  and  that  it  is  their  duty  to 
make  laws  that  will  promote  the  observance  of  a  day  of  rest,  and  in 
doing  this,  protect  those  who  worship  God  from  unreasonable  an- 
noyances. But  beyond  this,  I  do  not  see  that  the  Gospel  requires 
any  protection,  nor  that  the  Constitution  gives  any  power  to  the 
Legislature.     It  is  very  certain  that  efforts  for  the  better  observance 


128  THE    BIBLE   AND    POLITICS. 

of  the  Lord's  day  must  be  free  from  ultraisms  in  sentiment  and  from 
extravagance  in  plan,  or  they  cannot  succeed  in  an  age  so  liberal  and 
enlightened  as  ours.  It  is  only  such  efforts  that  can  prevail  against 
*'  the  rowdyism  and  immorality  of  ruffles  and  rags."  This  is  the 
ground  taken  in  the  last  Annual  Report  of  the  New  York  Sabbath 
Committee,  a  very  able  and  temperate  document. 

It  is  not  for  me  to  say  what  is  best  in  Europe,  but  I  insist  upon  it, 
that  in  the  United  States,  whose  inhabitants  have  been  gathered  from 
every  other  land  and  whose  organic  laws,  as  I  hope  I  have  success- 
fully shown,  do  not  recognize  or  prefer  any  religion,  the  only  safe 
course  is  an  entire  separation  of  civil  and  political  affairs  from  spiri- 
tual. Under  our  laws,  I  consider  it  unconstitutional,  unjust,  op- 
pressive and  tyrannical,  to  compel  the  use  of  our  Bible  in  the  Public 
Schools.  And  I  am  decidedly  opposed  to  any  ecclesiastical  action  of 
any  sect  or  Church,  that  asks  the  civil  authorities  to  do  anything  that 
oppresses  the  conscience  of  a  fellow-citizen.  The  organic  laws  of  my 
own  Church  expressly  forbid  any  Synod  or  Presbytery  meddling  with 
civil  affairs.  And  on  the  other  hand,  I  am  as  decidedly  opposed  to 
the  Legislature  making  any  compulsory  laws  as  to  the  use  of  the 
Bible,  both  because  the  Legislature  under  our  Constitution  has  no  right 
to  make  such  laws,  and  because  no  such  laws  can  be  made  without 
doing  violence  to  the  conscience  of  some  of  my  fellow-citizens,  whose 
rights  are  equal  to  my  own.  I  would  do  as  I  would  be  done  by;  and 
I  am  opposed  to  such  aid  from  the  Legislature,  for  Christianity 
neither  asks  it  nor  requires  it.  Let  the  province,  domain  and  laws  of 
the  State  and  of  the  Church  be  kept  entirely  distinct.  And  let  the 
great  work  of  education  comprise  the  highest  and  most  thorough 
secular  and  spiritual  training,  with  the  purest  morality  and  the  most 
fervent  piety;  but  let  the  State  confine  itself  to  its  part,  which  is  se- 
cular and  civil,  and  the  Church  to  its  part,  which  is  spiritual.  If, 
fortunately,  there  is  such  a  unanimity  of  religious  opinions,  that  the 
State  and  the  Church  can  work  together  at  the  same  time,  in  the  same 
school-houses  and  by  the  same  teachers,  then  we  say,  let  them  work 
together,  but  let  each  one  do  its  own  work.  But  where  such  a  com- 
promise is  impracticable,  then  let  the  Baltimore  or  the  Prussian  plan 
be  adopted;  or  as  I  prefer,  let  all  religious  instruction  come  from 
the  family,  the  Sabbath  School  and  the  Church. 


XX. 

No  persecution  allowed  by  our  laws  nor  by  Christianity  for  opinions. 

"  Far  over  yon  ^zure  main  thy  view  extend, 
Where  seas  and  skies  in  blue  confusion  blend : 
Lo,  there  a  mighty  realm,  by  heaven  designed, 
The  last  retreat  for  poor,  oppressed  mankind ; 
Formed  with  that  pomp  which  marks  the  hand  divine, 
And  clothes  yon  vault,  where  worlds  unnumbered  shine," 

— Dr.  Dwight. 


PROTECTION  NOT  PERSECUTION.  129 

# 

"  It  belongeth   of  right  unto  mankind,  that  every  one  may  worship  as  he 
thinketh  best:    nor  does   the  religion  of   any  man  harm  or  help  another. — 
Neither  is  it  the  business  of  religion  to  compel  religion,  which  ought  to  be 
taken  up  willingly,  and  not  against  the  will. — Tertullian:    translated  by  Dal-  ■ 
rymple. 

Alas  !  that  it  should  ever  have  been  thought  that  the  religion  of 
perfect  love  require  coercion — that  the  Gospel  was  to  be  propagated 
by  fire  and  sword,  statutes  and  decrees,  and  not  exclusively  by  per- 
suasion— by  truth  in  love.  Strange  that  men  should  be  so  long  in 
learning  that  protection  does  not  mean  oppression — that  Christianity 
does  not  require  or  allow  the  use  of  any  pains  or  penalties  for  her 
advancement  in  the  world.  It  is  strange  that  under  our  free  institu- 
tions there  should  be  any  diversity  of  sentiment  as  to  the  persecution 
of  men  for  their  opinions.  Well,  perhaps  there  is  none.  But  let 
us  see.  Is  it  not  true,  that  the  first  of  woman  born  killed  his  own 
brother  at  the  altar,  and  when  engaged  in  devotion,  or  at  least  about 
his  religion  ?  Was  this  a  type  of  the  race  Adamique  ?  And  did 
not  the  loving  John  call  for  fire  from. heaven  to  consume  those  that 
would  not  follow  his  master  precisely  as  he  did  ?  But  has  not  human 
nature  improved  ?  Is  there  not  more  liberality  of  sentiment  and 
feeling  now  than  in  ages  past  ?  It  is  true,  happily  for  us,  that  we 
are  protected  by  our  laws  from  the  Star  Chamber  and  the  Inquisition. 
Nor  are  we  in  immediate  danger  of  being  burned,  drowned  or  hanged 
as  astrologers,  necromancers,  wizards  and  witches ;  but  we  dare  not 
say  that  the  unclean  spirit  of  persecution  has  been  exorcised  from 
our  race.  There  are  many  ways  of  persecuting  men  besides  chaining 
them  to  the  stake,  or  throwing  them  to  wild  beasts,  or  into  fiery 
farnaces.  Some  of  the  greatest  statesmen  of  Great  Britain  have 
died  of  a  broken  heart.  Even  William  Pitt,  the  only  man  of  his 
nation  that  appreciated  the  intellect  of  Napoleon  died  of  old  age 
before  he  was  fifty. 

Proscription  for  opinion  is  tyranny,  whether  it  is  shown  by  the 
cold  shrug  of  the  shoulder,  the  passing  by  on  the  other  side,  the 
averted  eye,  or  by  calumny,  detraction,  misrepresentation  or  slander 
— or  by  studied  and  open  opposition.  It  has  been  the  lot  of  most 
benefactors  to  mankind  to  be  so  far  in  advance  of  their  times  as  not 
to  be  understood,  and  rarely  have  they  lived  to  see  the  fruits  of  their 
toil,  or  to  be  appreciated  by  those  for  whose  benefit  they  lived  and 
died.  It  is  also  a  remarkable  fact,  that  the  persecution  of  the  wise, 
the  great  and  the  good  in  past  ages  has  always  been  on  the  plea  of 
doing  service  to  God  and  the  State — always  for  the  public  good,  and 
to  correct  some  impiety,  or  atheism,  or  prevailing  immorality.  The 
early  Christian  martyrs  died  as  Socrates  had  done  before  them,  be- 
cause they  would  not  worship  the  gods.  In  the  days  of  our  Puritan 
nonconformity,  and  of  the  League  and  Covenant,  the  excuse  for  per- 
secution was  the  plea  that  the  purity  of  religion  and  the  advancement 
of  the  church,  and  the  glory  of  God,  required  it.  Opposition  to,  or 
even  the  refusal  to  submit  to  the  forms  and  dogmas  of  church  estab- 
lishments, has  always  been  construed  into  heresy,  atheism  and  trea- 
14 


130  THE   BIBLE  AND  POLITICS. 

son.  Even  Lord  Mansfield  for  some  of  his  decisions  in  favor  of 
civil  and  religious  freedom  was  denounced  as  "  a  Jesuit  in  disguise," 
and  ^'  in  league  with  the  devil/'  It  has  always  been  so.  The  few 
cotemporaries  that  comprehend  the  heroes  and  martyrs  of  human 
progress  were  jealous  of  their  fame,  and  the  rest,  who  did  not  appre- 
hend their  discoveries,  or  inventions,  or  labors,  were  easily  led  to  per- 
secute them  for  their  want  of  conformity  to  stereotyped  prejudices 
and  usages.  The  Quakers  and  Roger  Williams,  and  the  Baptists 
and  Methodists  of  our  earlier  day  are  witnesses  of  what  I  mean,  and 
of  what  has  been  endured  on  our  own  soil  for  conscience's  sake.  Men 
have  been  cast  out  of  the  synagogue  for  no  other  reason  than  that 
they  were  not  understood  by  their  fellow-citizens,  who  had  no  right 
to  sit  in  judgment  on  their  opinions ;  and,  besides,  by  men  who  did 
not  wish  to  understand  them,  for  th^y  feared  the  principles  and  opin- 
ions which  they  were  so  anxious  to  suppress  if  known  would  condemn 
their  own.  But  it  must  be  easily  seen  that  there  is  no  freedom  of 
conscience — no  true  liberty,  such  as  the  gospel  gives — while  there  is 
a  single  fetter  left  upon  the  expression  of  religious  opinion.  There 
must  be  as  free  an  utterance  for  a  man's  thoughts  as  there  is  for  his 
breath.  Neither  the  gospel,  nor  the  Constitution  allows  of  any  inter- 
ference with,  or  the  infliction  of  any  censure  for  mere  religious  opin- 
ions. Every  man  has  an  inalienable  right  to  perfect  personal 
religious  freedom.  And,  hence,  if  we  had  the  power  this  moment 
to  pull  down  the  Chinese  places  of  worship  in  our  midst,  and  by  force 
of  arms  proceed  to  the  islands  of  the  sea,  and  to  China,  and  India, 
and  pull  down,  burn  and  destroy  every  pagan  power  and  heathen  in- 
stitution— if  we  could  by  the  power  of  legislative  statutes,  and  by 
the  sword,  and  by  fire,  destroy  all  the  infidel  books  and  pictures  in 
the  land — we  would  not  do  it.  Christianity  in  the  long  run  has  never 
gained  influence  by  the  power  of  Caesar.  Her  triumphs  are  all  won 
by  the  Divine  blessing  on  fair  and  honorable  argument.  Her  great 
weapon  is  truth  in  love. 

But  does  not  the  Bible  authorize  pains  and  penalties  and  even  death 
for  errors  of  opinion  and  heresies  in  doctrine  ?  It  is  true,  a  great 
deal  is  said  in  the  Bible  against  witchcraft,  familiar  spirits  and  idola- 
try. Moses  and  the  Prophets  have  said  a  great  deal  against  idols, 
images,  sacred  groves,  and  false  gods — the  gods  of  the  heathen.  And 
the  most  solemn  denunciations  are  uttered  in  the  name  of  Jehovah — 
the  one,  only  living  and  true  God — against  false  gods,  and  the  wor- 
ship of  idols.  Much  more  is  said  in  the  Bible  on  this  subject  than 
is  generally  supposed.  And  it  is  worthy  of  remembrance  that  deal- 
ing with  familiar  spirits,  sorcery,  witchcraft,  false  gods  and  idols — all 
come  under  the  severest  condemnation  of  the  Bible.  They  are  usually 
put  together  in  the  same  catalogue. 

The  adversaries  of  the  Bible  urge  that  Christianity  is  not  true,  and 
that  the  Bible  is  a  mere  fable,  because  it  teaches  that  idolatry  was 
punished  with  death  among  the  Jews — God's  ancient  people.  They 
argue,  that  as  we  reqeive  the  Bible  as  the  Rule  of  Faith,  and  of 


HOW   IDOLATRY  WAS   PUNISHED.  131 

Practice,  so  we  must  punish  idolaters  with  death.     The  plausibility 
of  this  objection  to  Christianity  rests  on  two  facts  : 

First.  It  is  true,  the  Jews  did  punish  idolaters  with  death.  And, 
secondly  J  it  is  true,  that  professing  Christians  have  persecuted  not 
only  heathens,  but  one  another,  even  unto  death.  But  we  affirm, 
even  in  the  face  of  these  two  facts,  that  the  wrath  of  man  worketh 
not  the  righteousness  of  God.  Persecution  is  not  of  God,  but  of  the 
devil.  It  cometh  not  from  above,  but  always  from  underneath.  Per- 
secution, whether  of  Heathens,  of  Jews,  of  Komanists,  or  of  Pro- 
testants, is  diametrically  opposed  to  our  holy  religion.  The  religion 
of  Jesus  Christ  is  a  religion  of  peace  and  good  will  toward  all  men. 
If  professing  Christians  are  bigots  and  warring  fanatics,  it  is  not  their 
religion,  but  the  want  of  it  that  makes  them  such.  It  is  a  gross 
abuse,  and  a  total  perversion  of  the  Gospel,  that  makes  it  the  teacher 
of  fanaticism  or  intolerance.  It  is  a  mistake  from  beginning  to  end 
to  persecute  men  for  their  opinions,  political  or  religious,  or  for  their 
want  of  any  religion  at  all.  Men  cannot  be  carried  to  Paradise  on 
an  express  railroad  train,  nor  dragooned  or  bayoneted  into  heaven. 
It  is  only  moral  and  spiritual  habitude,  which  is  the  result  of  truth 
and  not  of  force,  that  can  fit  men  for  the  joys  of  the  world  to  come. 
Heaven  is  of  free  grace,  and  not  by  power.  We  offer  no  apology  for 
persecution.  We  assent  heartily  to  the  fullest  measure  of  its  odious- 
ness  and  condemnation.  We  teach  that  ''God  alone  is  Lord  of  the 
conscience."  Our  understanding  of  the  Gospel  is  that  all  men  are 
to  be  absolutely  free  to  worship  Him,  that  they  may  do  so  in  what- 
ever way  they  desire,  provided  their  manner  of  worship  does  not 
egress  on  the  rights  of  others,  or  come  in  conflict  with  the  laws  of 
the  land. 

The  strongest  and  the  earliest  assertion  of  religious  liberty  is  found 
in  the  answer  of  Peter  and  John  to  the  magistrates  who  com- 
manded them  to  teach  no  more  in  the  name  of  Jesus,  when  they 
refused  to  obey,  saying:  "Whether  it  be  right  in  the  sight  of  God  to 
hearken  unto  you  more  than  to  God,  judge  ye." — Acts  iv :  10.  And 
according  to  this  apostolic  doctrine,  the  Roman  Emperor,  CoNSTAN- 
TINE  the  Great,  the  first  Christian  Emperor,  issued  an  edict  giving 
liberty  to  the  Christians  and  Pagans  to  follow  their  own  religion. 

I  would  then  answer  the  unbeliever's  argument  against  Chris* 
tianity,  because  of  the  Hebrew  punishment  of  death  upon  idolaters, 
in  the  following  manner : 

1st.  The  Jewish  dispensation  was  one  of  sacrifices.  Ours  is  one 
of  mercy.  The  Hebrew  Government  was  a  theocracy.  Ours  is  one 
of  human  laws  and  human  rulers. 

2d.  Death  for  idolatry  was  emphatically  a  Jewish  punishment;! 
that  is,  it  was  a  mere  police  regulation  among  them.  It  was  enjoined 
by  Moses,  but  not  for  the  punishment  for  idolatry  in  the  abstract. 
The  idolater  was  not  to  be  put  to  death  simply  because  he  bowed 
down  before  a  stock  or  stone.  His  guilt  was  aback  of  this,  and  lay 
deeper,  far  deeper  than  what  appeared  in  his  mere  outward  acts. 
14* 


132  THE   BIBLE  AND   POLITICS. 

3d".  Moses  was  not  authorized  to  put  any  one  to  death  for  idolatry 
but  a  Hebrew.  He  had  no  commission  thus  to  punish  idolatry  in  a 
Heathen.  Why,  then,  were  Jews  to  be  punished  with  death  for  idol- 
atry? 

First.  Because  they  were  God's  chosen,  peculiar  representative 
people.  And  the  great  point  and  subject  of  their  representativeness 
was,  that  they  might  bear  testimony  amidst  an  idolatrous  world  to  the 
Divine  unity  and  spirituality.  No  Jew  could,  therefore,  be  an  idol- 
ater ignorantly. 

Secondly.  No  Jew  could  be  an  idolater  without  being  guilty  of  high 
treason  to  his  Grod,  for  God  was  both  his  deliverer  and  supreme  ruler. 
His  government  was  a  theocracy;  God  was  the  head  of  the  Jewish 
Commonwealth  as  well  as  of  the  Hebrew  Church.  A  Jew,  there- 
fore, who  was  an  idolater  was  guilty  of  treason  against  the  State,  and 
for  treason  was  to  be  punished  with  death. 

Thirdly.  The  Jew,  then,  who  was  an  idolater,  was  guilty  of  hypoc- 
risy, ingratitude,  perjury  and  high  treason,  and  as  such,  surely  we 
may  allow  that  he  was  rightfully  punished  with  death.  The  public 
safety  did  not  allow  him  to  live. 

Fourthly.  But  in  saying  that  the  idolater  among  the  ancient  Jews 
was  put  to  death,  we  do  not  say  that  he  was  put  to  death  according  to 
the  law  of  the  Ten  Commandments.  We  do  not  find  any  authority  in 
the  moral  law  to  punish  men  with  temporal  pains  and  penalties  for 
offenses  against  religion,  unless  they  are  offenses  per  se  also  against 
the  State.  A  mere  national  or  police  regulation  of  the  Jewish  com- 
monwealth is  not  binding  upon  other  nations.  There  are  principles 
of  national  law  and  of  international  law  that  all  nations  recognize,  but 
it  does  not  follow  that  the  national  institutions  of  all  countries  must 
be  alike.  Forgery  and  theft  and  adultery  were,  I  believe,  at  one  time 
punished  with  death  in  Great  Britain ;  but  it  does  not  follow  that  all 
nations  that  acknowledge  the  same  natural  laws  and  the  same  great 
principles  of  international  law  that  Great  Britain  does,  must  adopt 
the  same  internal  policy.  So  in  like  manner,  we  may  hold  to  the 
same  theism  that  Moses  taught,  we  may  even  allow  the  decalogue 
given  by  Moses  from  God  to  the  Hebrews  to  be  a  part  of  our  com- 
mon and  statute  law,  and  yet  not  be  by  any  means  under  obligations 
to  punish  any  of  the  violations  of  the  Ten  Commandments  with  death, 
as  the  Jews  did.  The  Ten  Commandments,  as  given  in  the  tables 
from  God,  have  no  temporal  pains  and  penalties  attached  to  them. 
As  thus  given,  they  are  set  forth,  like  the  knowledge  of  the  Divine 
unity  and  spirituality  revealed  to  Abraham  and  the  patriarchs  for  all 
mankind.  It  was  only  when  and  in  the  degree  that  any  part  of  the 
decalogue  was  incorporated  in  the  Hebrew  polity,  and  made  a  part  of 
their  national  police  government,  that  pains  and  penalties  were 
attached  to  its  violations.  And  it  was  enough  that  in  attaching  such 
pains  and  penalties  to  offenses,  they  did  not  go  beyond  the  law  of 
God,  nor  violate  the  principles  of  natural  justice.  We  may  surely 
adopt  or  incorporate  into  our  jurisprudence  and  national  policy  the 


JEWISH   POLICE   LAWS.  13^ 

same  principles  of  natural  law  that  are  acknowledged  by  the  great 
nations  of  Europe,  without  obliging  ourselves  to  adopt  monarchy  as 
the  best  form  of  government.  We  may  adopt  the  common  law  of 
England  in  the  main,  and  the  civil  code  of  France,  so  far  as  is  con- 
sistent with  our  distinctive  institutions ;  and  Great  Britain,  France 
and  the  United  States  may  acknowledge  the  same  great  international 
laws;  and  yet,  surely,  we  are  not  on  any  of  these  accounts  obliged  to 
support  the  Church  by  the  state  as  is  done  in  England  and  France. 
So  I  apprehend  there  is  no  difficulty — no  inconsistency  in  our  believ- 
ing that  a  Christian  Sunday  is  of  perpetual  moral  obligation,  and  yet 
that  the  man  who  violates  it  is  not  to  be  punished  as  the  ancient 
Hebrew  Sabbath-breaker  was.  We  wish  that  the  Lord's  day  may  be 
kept  as  a  day  for  rest  and  for  moral,  mental  and  religious  improve- 
ment; but  we  believe  it  to  be  contrary  to  the  Gospel  to  have  any 
civil  disabilities  or  bodily  pains  laid  upon  those  who  refuse  to  wor- 
ship God  on  the  Sabbath.  And  exactly  on  the  same  ground  do  we 
place  idolatry.  We  find  the  worship  of  idols  punished  by  the  ancient 
Hebrew  law.  And  we  find  sufficient  reason  for  this  punishment. 
It  was  an  internal,  national,  municipal,  or  police  law  that  appointed 
death  to  the  idolatrous  Hebrew.  But  it  does  not  follow  because  we 
adopt  the  decalogue  of  Moses,  which  forbids  the  worship  of  images, 
that  we  must  persecute  idolaters  and  punish  them  with  death.  Cer- 
tainly not.  No  pains  or  penalties  are  attached  to  the  moral  law  on 
this  subject,  as  we  find  it  promulgated  in  the  statutes  of  the  one  liv- 
ing and  true  God.  Nor  have  we  any  amendments  authorizing  us  to 
compel  men  to  worship  God.  I  do  not  then  find  in  the  Constitution 
nor  in  the  Word  of  God  any  right  or  power  to  interfere  in  any  way 
with  the  perfect  religious  freedom  of  any  man — not  even  the  power 
to  inquire  whether  he  has  any  religion  at  all,  nor  what  kind  of  reli- 
gion he  professes,  except  by  way  of  benevolent  enlightenment.  We 
are  not  commanded  to  lead  revolutions  and  carry  fire  and  sword  over 
the  earth,  because  men  are  not  of  our  way  of  thinking.  Our  great 
commission  is  to  teach  all  men  the  knowledge  of  the  true  God  and 
of  His  Son  Jesus  Christ,  whom  to  know  aright  is  life  eternal. 
Our  mission  is  not  to  destroy,  but  to  save  men's  lives;  to  teach  all 
nations  and  preach  to  every  creature  the  sovereign  love  of  God. 

Idolatry  was  punished  by  the  law  of  Moses,  not  because  it  was  a 
sin  against  God,  but  because  it  was  a  crime  against  the  State.  As 
the  government  was  a  theocracy,  idolatry  was  high  treason.  But 
that  a  Christian  State  is  authorized  from  the  Mosaic  economy  to  ex- 
tirpate religious  error  by  force,  or  to  propagate  the  truth  by  the  sword, 
or  to  teach  religion  by  legislative  decrees,  cannot  be  shown  from  the 
Bible.  "  For,''  as  Mr.  Litton  in  his  Bampton  lectures,  says,  "  not 
until  it  can  be  shown  that  God  has  delivered  to  a  Christian  State  a 
law  prescribing  the  •manner  in  which  He  is  to  be  worshipped,  and 
made  that  law  part  of  the  civil  constitution  of  the  State,  will  any 
argument  from  the  supposed  parallel  of  the  Jewish  economy  hold 
good." 


134  THE  BIBLE  AND   POLITICS. 

The  true  way  to  advance  Christianity  was  pointed  out  long  ago  by 
a  distinguished  '^  doctor  of  the  law/'  who  *'  had  reputation  among  all 
the  people.".  "  Refrain/'  said  he  on  a  memorable  occasion,  ''  from 
these  men,  and  let  them  alone ;  for  if  this  counsel  or  this  work  be  of 
men,  it  will  come  to  nought.  But  if  it  be  of  God,  ye  cannot  over- 
throw it ;  lest  haply  ye  be  found  even  to  fight  against  Grod." — (Acts 
v:  38,  39.)  The  weapons  of  our  warfare  are  not  carnal,  but  spirit- 
ual ;  nevertheless  they  are  powerful  through  God,  to  the  pulling  down 
of  all  principalities  and  powers  that  set  themselves  against  the  gospel. 
The  kingdom  of  God  cometh  not  with  observation  ;  it  is  not  a  religion 
of  "  pomp  and  gold  "—and  it  consisteth  not  in  the  loud  sounding  of 
tiPbmpets,  nor  in  joyous  rituals  and  glittering  pompous  ceremonies. 
It  is  righteousness,  serene  peace  and  joy  in  the  Holy  Ghost.  Nothing 
can  be  more  widely  apart  than  the  spirit  of  the  gospel  and  the  malig- 
nant spirit  of  party  and  sect,  that  would  call  down  fire  from  heaven 
upon  those  that  do  not  walk  with  us.  The  very  worst  perversion  that 
can  be  done  to  religion  is  to  convert  it  to  the  purposes  of  faction.  I 
am  persuaded  the  abuse  of  the  gospel,  and  the  perversion  of  its  sub- 
lime truths  and  precepts  to  party  factions,  has  done  more  harm  to  the 
church  than  all  the  infidelity  ever  breathed  out  of  hell.  The  politi- 
cal ranting  of  the  pulpit  has  well  nigh  destroyed  our  fair  patrimony. 
If  I  love  not  my  brother,  whom  I  have  seen,  how  can  I  love  God 
whom  I  have  not  seen  ?  If  I  hate  my  fellow  man,  because  he  is  not 
a  Christian,  then  I  am  not  a  Christian  myself.  If  I  will  not  allow 
my  neighbor  to  go  to  heaven  in  any  other  than  in  my  own  narrow 
sectarian  way,  then  I  am  not  going  to  heaven  myself.  Persecution 
is  as  unwise  as  it  is  impious  and  cruel.  It  is  folly  in  the  extreme. 
*^  When  man  undertakes  to  be  God's  avenger,  he  becomes  a  demon !" 
"  It  not  only,"  says  a  vigorous  writer,  but  I  know  not  who,  "  opposes 
every  precept  of  the  New  Testament,  but  invades  the  prerogative  of 
God  himself.  It  is  a  usurpation  of  the  attributes  which  belong  ex- 
clusively to  the  Most  High.  It  is  a  vain  endeavor  to  ascend  unto 
His  throne,  to  wield  His  sceptre,  to  hurl  His  thunder  bolts.  And 
then  its  history  proves  how  useless  it  is.  Truth  is  immortal ;  the 
sword  cannot  pierce  it ;  fires  cannot  consume  it,  prisons  cannot  incar- 
cerate it,  famine  cannot  starve  it ;  all  the  violence  of  men,  stirred  up 
by  the  power  and  subtlety  of  hell,  cannot  put  it  to  death.  In  the 
person  of  its  martyrs  it  bids  defiance  to  the  will  of  the  tyrant,  who 
persecutes  it,  and  with  the  martyr's  last  breath  predicts  its  own  full 
and  final  triumph.  The  Pagan  persecuted  the  Christian,  but  Christi- 
anity lives.  The  Roman  Catholic  persecuted  the  Protestant,  but  yet 
Protestantism  still  lives.  The  Protestant  persecuted  the  Roman 
per  Catholic,  but  yet  Catholicism  lives.  The  Church  of  England 
persecuted  Nonconformists,  and  yet  Nonconformity  lives.  When  per- 
secution is  carried  to  its  extreme  length  of  extirpating  heretics.  Truth 
may  be  extinguished  in  one  place,  but  it  will  break  out  in  another." 
If  opinions  cannot  be  put  down  by  fair  and  honest  arguments,  they 
cannot  be  put  down  by  bayonets  and  ecclesiastical  decrees.     "  Truth, 


THE  WAY   TO   VICTORY,  135 

like  a  torch,  the  more  it  is  shook,  the  more  it  shines."  As  the  blood 
of  the  martyrs  was  the  seed  of  the  Church  in  primitive  times,  so  now 
Truth  often  goes  from  the  Cross  triumphing.  It  is  sure  of  victory  in 
the  end,  not  only  by  its  own  evidences,  but  by  the  suffering  of  its 
confessors. 

If  then  we  are  the  sincere  followers  of  Christ,  and  are  zealous  that 
His  truth  shall  prevail  among  men,  and  peace  be  established  on  earth, 
we  must  allow  men  to  judge  for  themselves,  and  embrace  the  opinion 
they  think  right  without  any  proscription  or  without  any  hope  of  re- 
ward or  any  fear  of  temporal  punishment.  The  relation  of  the  State 
to  Idolatry  I  have  endeavored  to  make  thus  prominent,  not  for  any 
political  or  commercial  bearing  it  may  have.  My  aim  is  higher.  I 
am  seeking  to  find  out  in  the  light  of  history  and  philosophy,  and 
from  a  gospel  stand-point,  our  duty  as  Christians  and  patriots  to  these 
people,  who  from  afar,  are  now  among  us  with  their  gods.  And  I 
am  sure  the  way  to  emancipate  them  from  the  power  of  heathen  dark- 
ness, and  to  convert  them  to  Christ  is  not  to  oppress  them  as  stran- 
gers, nor  to  discourage  them  in  their  honest  toils,  nor  to  harrass  them 
with  any  unnecessary  laws,  nor  to  invoke  the  aid  of  the  secular  power 
to  build  dungeons  for  them,  if  they  will  not  worship  our  Grod  as  we 
do.  We  are  not  to  ask  for  legislative  enactments  to  pull  down  their 
temples  and  prohibit  their  worship.  No.  There  is  a  more  excellent 
way.  We  are  to  teach  them  by  the  law  of  kindness.  We  must  exer- 
cise patience  and  forbearance  toward  them.  We  must  set  them  an 
example  of  high-minded,  honorable  treatment,  and  of  generosity  and 
of  justice.  It  is  by  our  Christian  deportment,  and  not  by  legal 
statutes,  that  we  are  to  win  them  to  the  truth.  They  will  judge  of 
our  God  by  our  treatment  of  them.  They  will  decide  for  or  against 
Christianity  as  they  see  our  lives  to  be  correct  or  ungodly.  We  must, 
therefore,  pray  for  them  and  unceasingly  strive  to  drive  the  darkness 
out  of  their  heathen  minds  by  pouring  in  the  light  of  truth,  espe- 
cially the  light  of  the  Glorious  Gospel  of  the  Grace  of  God. 


XXI. 

Concluding  Words, 

I  do  not  assume,  fellow-citizens,  to  be  a  political  philosopher,  nor 
a  statesman,  nor  have  I  addressed  you  in  these  pages  from  the  sacred 
desk.  I  speak  to  you  only  as  an  humble  citizen,  and  a  life  long 
student  of  the  Word  of  God  ]  and  I  have  tried,  in  so  doing,  to  present 
to  you  some  views  on  the  true  relations  of  Christianity  to  our  organic 
laios.  And  I  have  felt  it  the  more  to  be  my  solemn  duty  and  privi- 
lege to  contribute  my  humble  share  toward  the  elucidation  of  this 


136  THE   BIBLE  AND   POLITICS. 

very  difficult  and  important  subject,  because  this  is  "  my  own,  my 
native  land."  The  fathers  of  the  Revolution  are  my  fathers.  My 
sires  in  the  old  and  new  world  have  all  been  on  the  side  of  civil  and 
religious  liberty.  They  have  done  their  duty  on  the  battle  fields  of 
the  Middle  and  Southern  States.  Nor  will  I  allow  any  man  to  cherish 
a  more  profound  veneration  for  the  early  settlers  of  this  continent, 
and  the  framers  of  our  Constitution,  than  I  do.  And  as  I  bless  their 
memory,  so  would  I  preserve,  for  coming  generations,  the  glorious 
institutions  they  have  bequeathed  to  us,  in  all  their  purity  and  vigor. 

Those  who  have  not  observed  the  tone  of  some  of  our  religious 
newspapers  and  their  correspondents,  may  not  be  aware  of  the  excite- 
ment that  has  grown  up  among  them,  nor  of  the  bitterness  they  in- 
dulge toward  foreigners,  and  those  who  do  not  think  as  they  do.  It 
is  amazing  what  gross  mistakes  and  misapprehensions  have  beeu  in- 
dustriously circulated  as  to  the  sentiments  that  I  hold  on  the  subject- 
matters  of  the  foregoing  pages.  And  as  I  am  not  willing,  especially 
on  account  of  my  friends,  to  be  represented  as  the  advocate  of  errone- 
ous views  which  I  utterly  repudiate,  I  have  felt  myself  to  be  under 
the  necessity  of  using  an  exuberance  of  illustrations,  and  of  amply- 
fying  points,  and  repeating  limitations  and  explanations,  that  under 
any  ordinary  circumstances  I  should  not  have  done.  I  feel  almost 
ashamed  of  the  earnest  plainness  of  the  arguments  and  illustrations  I 
have  thought  it  necessary  to  use.  But  I  have  done  so  from  choice, 
because  the  whole  subject  is  new  to  many,  and  my  views  are  repre- 
sented as  <' startling  to  many  honest  people,"  and  familiar  to  but  few; 
and  besides,  as  I  am  not  writing  for  the  learned  professions,  but  for 
my  fellow. citizens  of  all  conditions,  and  for  many  to  whom,  possibly, 
our  tongue  is  not  native,  and  who  are  not  familiar  with  our  laws,  I 
have  therefore  thought  it  best  to  keep  certain  points  steadily  before 
the  mind,  and  to  repeat  some  views  from  several  different  standing 
places.  I  have  tried  to  write  to  be  understood,  not  to  make  flowing 
periods. 

The  patient  reader,  who  has  done  me  the  honor  to  follow  me  thus 
far,  is  convinced,  I  hope,  that  this  question  cannot  be  settled  by 
abusing  Catholics,  and  cherishing  prejudices  against  foreigners.  Nor 
is  it  a  mere  question  between  Catholics  and  Protestants.  It  involves 
the  greater  question  of  the  union  of  Church  and  State — and  I  think, 
also,  that  it  will  be  found,  upon  a  calm  review  of  our  history,  that  we 
have  done  some  things  in  our  zeal  for  Christianity  that  are  dangerous 
precedents  under  a  popular  government  like  ours — that,  in  fact, 
without  intending  it,  but  under  the  influence  of  traditions  from  our 
fatherlands,  and  from  an  honest  desire  to  promote  morality  and  re- 
ligion, we  have  often  done,  and  desired  our  legislators  to  do,  what  they 
ought  not  to  have  done.  We  have  wished  and  caused  them  to  do 
what  was  inconsistent  with  our  doctrine  of  the  total  separation  of  the 
Church  from  the  State.  The  asking  legislative  aid  in  any  way  to 
sustain  and  promote  our  Christianity,  is,  in  my  judgment,  unconsti- 
tutional and  unwise.     I  do  not  believe  that,  as  Protestants,  we  gain 


TOO   MUCH   LAW.  137 

anything  by  it,  but  put  every  thing  in  peril.  We  Protestants,  being 
in  a  numerical  majority  now,  should  say  and  prove  our  sincerity  by 
our  conduct,  that  we  do  not  ask,  and  will  not  receive,  any  legislative 
favors;  nor  will  we  allow  Catholics  or  anybody  else  to  do  so.  I  do 
not  like  this  propensity  to  call  upon  Hercules  to  help  us  to  do  what  as 
Christians  we  should  do  ourselves.  I  like  not  this  besieging  the 
Legislature  to  do  this  and  do  that  for  the  promotion  of  religion,  and 
especially  for  the  advantage  of  our  Bible.  I  would  not  teach  such  a 
thing  to  the  Jesuits,  It  betrays,  moreover,  fear  on  our  part.  If  two 
boys  are  fighting,  and  one  calls  in  a  third  to  his  aid,  is  it  not  a  plain 
confession  that  his  antagonist  is  too  strong  for  him  ?  The  case  is  a 
very  simple  one.  Catholics  and  Protestants  are  antagonistic  religion- 
ists, and  a  part  of  the  difference  between  them  is  their  use  of  different 
versions  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  and  the  Protestants  call  upon  the 
Legislature  to  help  them  to  compel  the  Catholics  to  submit  to  promote 
the  reading  of  their  version,  and  that  too  under  a  government  that  has 
no  religion,  and  knows  neither  party  as  to  their  creeds.  /  do  not  he- 
lieve  that,  as  Protestants,  we  are  henejitted  hy  any  legislative  enact- 
ments  in  our  favor]  hut  in  the  end  will  find  every  one  of  these 
statutes  an  evil.  I  have  erred  in  the  understanding  of  history,  if  the 
union  of  the  Reformers  with  politics  has  not  been  a  great  hindrance 
to  Protestantism  in  Europe.  It  is  my  opinion,  speaking  after  the 
manner  of  men,  that  if  the  Protestants  of  France  had  not  joined 
themselves  to  the  government,  that  France  would  this  day  have  been 
a  leading  Protestant  nation.  But  not  only  so,  but  all  attempts  to 
restrain  free  inquiry,  and  to  fetter  the  advancement  of  liberal  ideas, 
and  true  knowledge  will  fail.  Men  may  be  worried,  and  suffer  incon- 
venience for  holding  opinions  that  are  not  popular,  but  if  they  are 
true,  they  will  prevail,  and  if  they  are  not  true,  no  power  on  earth 
can  make  them  beneficial.  And  again,  the  correlative  of '  all  this 
legislation  for  the  promotion  of  our  Christianity,  is  an  implied  power 
to  put  down,  by  the  same  means,  everything  that  is  opposed  to  it. 
But  surely  we  are  not  again  to  havp  the  horrors  of  Smithfield  or  of 
the  inquisition  repeated,  and  that  in  America.  I  trust  in  God  that 
the  dark  night  of  punishment  for  religious  heresies  has  past  away  for 
ever.  I  do  not  believe  in  any  proscription  or  persecution  for  political 
errors  or  religious  opinions.  Truth  is  never  promoted  by  such  means, 
nor  are  those  who  hold  them  ever  truly  converted  from  them  by  such 
agents.  Proscription  and  persecution  harden  the  heart,  but  never 
convince  the  understanding.  And  as  errors  are  but  imperfections  of 
the  understanding,  the  only  way  to  correct  them  is  to  enlighten  the 
understanding.  The  only  way  to  get  darkness  out  is  to  let  light  in. 
A  man's  thoughts  are  really  known  to  nobody  but  himself  and  his 
God — perhaps  not  clearly  understood  by  himself.  All  laws  then  for 
the  punishment  of  opinions  are  unjust  and  cruel.  Argument  should 
meet  argument,  and  facts  be  opposed  by  facts.  The  criterion  of  our 
standing  in  society  is  our  conduct,  not  our  opinions.  The  law  asks 
what  have  we  done/ not  what  we  think.     Compulsion  makes  dissem- 


138  THE  BIBLE  AND   POLITICS. 

biers  or  hypocrites,  but  never  inspires  true  piety.  Suppose  my  neigh- 
bor is  a  Deist,  and  I  wish  to  convert  him  to  Christianity,  by  replying 
to  the  major  in  his  syllogism  against  the  Bible  by  a  blow  on  the  head, 
and  to  his  minor,  by  imprisoning  his  person ;  and  to  his  conclusion, 
by  setting  the  populace  against  him  with  the  howl  of  infidelity,  as  if 
he  were  a  mad  dog.  And  will  this  convert  and  save  him  ?  Is  it  thus 
he  is  to  be  brought  to  his  Saviour  and  restored  to  his  right  mind  ? 
But  if  fine  and  imprisonment,  civil  disabilities,  are  bad  forms  of  a 
syllogism,  so  also  are  private  reproach  and  public  obloquy.  0,  when 
shall  we  learn  that  Christianity  prevails  the  most  when  left  to  take 
care  of  herself! 

And  as  I  do  not  believe  the  cause  of  Divine  truth  requires  us  to 
call  in  the  aid  of  the  civil  authorities  to  teach  the  Bible,  so  neither 
do  I  believe  that  the  not  reading  of  the  Bible  by  Statute  law  in  our 
Public  Schools  will  cause  virtue  and  morality  to  perish  out  of  the 
land.  If  I  could  be  made  to  believe  that  the  Bible  required  the  aid 
of  the  civil  authorities  to  maintain  itself  in  the  world,  I  should  se- 
riously call  in  question  its  divine  origin.  If  I  believed  that  our 
Grospel  called  upon  us  to  propagate  it  by  the  power  of  the  civil  magis- 
trate, I  should  doubt  its  divine  mission.  The  argument,  then,  that 
the  State  must  make  the  Bible  the  basis  of  our  Public  Schools,  be- 
cause there  is  no  other  way  by  which  it  can  be  taught  to  its  millions 
of  children,  is  but  a  round  about  way  of  saying,  the  State  must  adopt 
the  Protestant  Bible  and  establish  the  Protestant  religion.  My 
friends  have  not  produced  a  syllable  from  our  organic  laws,  that  re- 
quires or  even  allows  the  State  to  do  this,  nor  have  they  cited  a  single 
text  from  the  Bible,  that  is  addressed  to  the  State,  commanding  it  to 
do  this  thing.  The  Bible  is  the  Word  of  God,  and  we  are  to  read  it 
and  believe  it ;  but  the  Bible  does  not  command  Ccesar  to  make  his 
subjects  read  it.  Our  Lord  did  not  command  the  civil  rulers  to 
preach  His  Grospel  to  every  creature.  All  His  commands  are  to  His 
professing  followers,  as  individuals  and  as  members  of  His  Church, 
and  not  to  them  as  politicians  or  legislators.  The  great  weapons  of 
His  Church  are  knowledge,  truth,  light,  moral  persuasion — His  Word 
and  Spirit.  They  are  spiritual,  not  carnal.  Our  Lord's  disciples 
went  out  to  preach  without  any  civil  enactments  in  their  favor,  and 
they  kept  on  preaching  the  Gospel,  in  spite  of  the  secular  power, 
until  they  carried  his  banner  victoriously  over  the  whole  Koman  Em- 
pire, and  planted  it  on  the  throne  of  Caesar  himself.  The  Church  of 
Christ  went  forth  weeping  from  his  cross  for  the  conquest  of  the 
world,  armed  neither  with  legislative  statutes  nor  with  the  sword ; 
and  all  her  real  victories  are  the  conquests  of  love.  It  is  not  by 
Caesar's  might  nor  power,  but  by  the  Spirit  of  God  the  world  is  to  be 
converted  and  saved. 

In  almost  every  government  in  the  world,  except  ours,  religion  is 
so  much  a  creature  of  the  State,  that  the  union  of  Church  and  State 
is  a  political  axiom.  In  fact,  it  was  to  escape  from  this  tyranny,  the 
very  tyranny  that  belongs  more  or  less  essentiallji  to  religious  estab- 


or  TBS      ' 

tryiVERsr. 

LORD   CARLISLE'S  SPEECH*  139 

lishments,  that  most  of  the  colonists  who  first  settled  this  continent 
left  their  homes.  They  came  for  freedom  to  worship  God  themselves j 
but  unfortunately  they  had  not  fully  learned  to  let  others  live  among 
them  enjoying  the  same  freedom.  And  in  fact  we  are  all  slow  in 
learning  to  trust  the  truth  and  to  rely  upon  its  own  goodness,  and  upon 
the  Word  and  Spirit  of  God.  I  was  very  much  impressed  with  some 
remarks  of  Lord  Carlisle  on  the  circulation  of  the  Bible,  at  a  recent 
meeting  of  the  British  and  Foreign  Bible  Society.  After  saying 
that  he  should  prefer  himself  to  have  the  whole  Bible  circulated  in 
its  purest  form,  still,  when  that  cannot  be  done,  then  he  would  aid  in 
circulating  the  Douay  version,  or  the  Diodati  version,  he  goes  on 
to  say : 

*^  I  should  feel  very  reluctant  to  pronounce  any  positive  dogmatic 
opinion  upon  the  precise  measures  in  which  the  concerns  of  govern- 
ment, of  education,  and  religion  ought  to  be  dealt  with  in  India.  As 
a  general  principle,  however,  I  should  say,  that  the  more  we  can 
separate  the  direct  agency  of  government  influence  from  the  spread 
of  gospel  truth,  the  better  it  will  generally  he  for  the  interests  ice  have 
most  at  heart — namely,  the  spread  of  that  very  gospel  truth.  I  think 
that  nothing  can  be  so  ill  associated  together  as  the  Bible  and  the 
bayonet  ]  and  what  would  almost  be  as  ill-paired  together  would  be 
the  Bible  and  bribery.  The  more,  therefore,  we  separate  official 
compidsion,  or  official  allurements,  from  the  cause  of  the  gospel,  the 
more  anxious  we  shoidd  he  to  see  j^rivate  effort,  private  benevolence, 
private  piety  and  private  self-denial,  occupying  the  widest  range  and 
working  in  the  largest  field  of  action  which  they  can  find  for  them- 
selves. I  hope  that  nothing  I  have  said  will  be  misconceived  as  im- 
plying an  opinion  that  the  individuals  of  the  government  ought  to 
show  themselves  indifferent  to  that  which  is  the  first  and  highest 
duty  of  every  man.  Where,  however,  the  government  may  not  enter, 
private  zeal  and  private  efforts  may ;  and  where  can  they  find  a  more 
appropriate  or  august  theater  than  in  that  ancient  and  populous  em- 
pire of  India?" 

It  is  not  true,  then,  that  the  countiy  is  to  be  without  religion,  and 
our  children  are  to  be  "  robbed  of  their  Bible,"  Lf  it  is  not  used  by 
law  in  the  schools.  By  no  means.  The  only  question  at  issue  here 
is  as  to  the  best  means  of  making  religion  prevail  with  the  most 
efficiency,  and  of  bringing  our  children  as  well  as  the  adult  popula- 
tion the  most  fully  under  the  influence  of  the  Bible.  And,  as  Lord 
Carlisle  says,  so  I  believe,  that  "  the  more  we  can  separate  the 
direct  agency  of  government  influence  from  the  spread  of  gospel 
truth,  the  better  will  it  be  for  the  spread  of  that  very  gospel."  And 
^'  the  more  we  separate  official  compulsion  from  the  cause  of  the 
gospel,"  the  more  need  is  there  of  private  zeal  and  missionary  effort, 
and  the  more  will  that  gospel  prevail.  If  we  violate  our  organic 
laws,  and  do  what  the  gospel  does  not  authorize  us  to  do,  in  trying 
to  have  the  Lord's  day  kept  holy,  and  the  Bible  read,  then  we  do 
more  harm  than  good.     But  in  not  compelling  the  use  of  the  Bible 


140  THE  BIBLE  AND   POLITICS. 

in  the  Public  Schools,  there  is  no  robbing  of  the  children  of  their 
Bibles.  Every  child  in  the  United  States  may  have  a  Bible  for  the 
asking  of  it,  and  may  read  or  hear  it  read  every  day  in  the  year,  and 
call  upon  God  in  prayer,  without  let  or  hindrance  from  legislators, 
school  directors,  or  bishops.  As  to  their  need  of  the  "Word  of  God, 
that  no  one  denies ;  but  do  they  not  need  bread  and  clothing  ?  And 
is  it  the  duty  of  the  State  to  deny  all  liberty  to  personal  efforts,  and 
out  of  a  common  wardrobe  and  granary  supply  every  one's  wants  ? 
There  is  just  as  much  reason  to  say  the  State  robs  our  children  of 
bread,  because  it  does  not  turn  purveyor  to  every  family,  and  employ 
some  one  with  a  spoon  to  feed  our  children,  or  that  it  robs  them  of 
their  clothes,  because  it  does  not  send  some  one  to  put  them  on.  If 
our  children  are  not  clothed,  they  will  be  naked :  if  they  are  not  fed, 
they  will  starve  to  death.  But  must  the  State,  therefore,  assume  the 
duty  of  meeting  every  individual  necessity  ?  And  even  if  the  State 
did  this,  in  regard  to  temporal  matters,  there  is  still  the  greater 
question  to  settle,  as  to  the  State  interfering  with  a  man's  conscience 
or  personal  religion.  All  civil  matters  properly  belong  to  the  State, 
and,  in  some  measure  and  under  peculiar  circumstances,  it  might 
undertake  the  feeding  and  clothing  of  its  children,  and  provide  for 
their  secular  education ;  hut  it  cannot  compel  any  measvre,  or  act,  or 
rite,  or  ceremony  of  a  religious  nature.  And  as  to  the  grandiloquent 
strain  about  the  '^  outrage  on  the  conscience  of  twenty  millions  of  en- 
lightened evangelical  Christians,  in  allowing  a  minority  of  some  two 
or  three  millions  of  ignorant  foreigners  to  govern  them :"  I  have 
only  to  beg  a  reference  back  to  my  seventeenth  chapter,  and  the 
candid  request,  that  the  authorities  may  be  given,  from  the  Bible  and 
from  the  Constitution,  that  distinguish  men  and  citizens,  by  numeri- 
cal majority-consciences,  and  give  the  right  to  a  majority  to  lord  it 
over  the  conscience  of  a  minority. 

It  is  admitted  that  religion  is  essential  to  our  well-being,  but  so  is 
bread.  Must  the  government,  then,  clear  the  ground,  fence  in  the 
land,  plough  and  sow,  and  make  laws  compelling  every  man  to  work 
80  many  hours  ?  Such  is  not  our  idea  of  political  economy.  Such  is 
not  the  practice  of  our  government.  The  government  sells  the  far- 
mer a  piece  of  land,  which  he  is  to  hold  in  fee-simple,  subject  to  a 
small  tax,  to  be  levied  according  to  law — according  to  laws  which  he 
and  his  fellow-citizens  may  ordain — and  the  government  says  to  him. 
Build  you  a  house,  and  it  shall  be  your  castle — plough,  and  sow,  and 
reap,  and  the  fruits  of  the  earth  are  your  own,  and  you  shall  be  pro- 
tected. The  largest  freedom  is  allowed.  And  the  same  course, 
mutatis  mutandis ,  is  pursued  in  regard  to  religion.  The  govern- 
ment, per  se,  has  no  religion.  It  does  not  undertake  to  furnish  or 
to  teach  any.  It  regards  religion  as  so  sacred,  private  and  personal 
a  thing,  that  it  leaves  it  altogether  to  every  one's  own  conscience. 
The  government  does  not  recognize  religion  as  a  qualification  to  citi- 
zenship, nor  to  any  of  the  duties  or  offices  over  which  it  has  control. 
Accordingly,  it  does  only  one  thing,  and  but  one  thing,  in  regard  to 


WHAT  THE   GOVERNMENT   DOES.  141 

religion,  and  that  one  thing  is  not  toleration^  but  absolute  and  equal 
freedom  to  all,  making  no  discrimination  and  showing  no  favor, 
but  leaving  all  and  each  one  to  have  whatever  religion,  or  none,  as 
he  may  himself  choose,  and  to  support  and  propagate  his  religion,  if 
he  has  any,  in  whatever  way  he  pleases.  I  hold  it,  then,  that  this 
plea,  that  the  State  must  place  the  Bible  in  her  schools,  is  only  ask- 
ing the  State  to  do  indirectly  and  covertly  what  she  cannot  do  openly, 
and  ought  not  to  do  at  all.  Tinder  the  disguise  of  education,  reli- 
gion,  and  even  sectarianism  is  concealed.  As  the  State  undertakes 
to  educate  its  children  in  secular  knowledge  and  fit  them  to  be  citi- 
zens, a  new  duty  is  imposed — namely,  to  teach  them  religion — the 
Protestant  religion — and  yet  the  State  knows  no  religion,  and  re- 
quires none  in  its  citizens  or  office-holders.  I  fear  these  Greeks 
bringing  gifts.  I  would  neither  give  the  axe  a  handle,  nor  allow  the 
Trojan  horse  to  come  within  the  gates. 

The  stereotyped  argument,  that  the  State  must  place  the  Bible  in 
the  schools,  or  our  country  will  be  ruined  for  the  want  of  religion,  is 
precisely  the  plea  used  by  the  people  of  Connecticut,  Massachusetts 
and  Virginia  for  the  establishment  of  religion  by  law.  They  said : 
"  The  happiness  of  the  people  and  the  good  order  of  civil  govern- 
ment essentially  depend  upon  the  piety,  religion  and  morality  of  the 
people;"  therefore,  they  established  religion  by  law.  The  argument 
for  the  compulsory  use  of  the  Bible  in  the  schools,  is  precisely 
the  same  that  is  used  in  Europe  for  taxes  and  tithes,  and  a  constabu- 
lary police  to  collect  Church  rates  and  keep  up  religious  establish- 
ments. Every  thinking  man,  who  believes  in  the  truth  of  religion 
at  all,  will  admit  that  it  is  the  greatest  blessing  on  earth.  But  this  is 
not  the  question.  The  true  question  is,  can  we  best  promote  vital 
religion  among  the  people  b}^  government  aid  and  compulsory  statutes, 
or  by  depending  on  the  Word  and  Spirit  of  God  ?  This  is  the  only 
question,  and  I  answer  the  latter  method  is  the  only  one  known  to 
the  Gospel,  and  the  only  one  we  have  a  right  to  use  under  our  laws. 
Individual  efforts,  associated  voluntary  efforts,  the  Press,  the  Pulpit, 
the  family  and  the  Church  are  the  great  teachers  of  morals  and 
religion. 

I  confess  that  I  am  not  able  to  comprehend  what  my  friends  mean, 
who  say,  they  do  not  wish  religion  to  be  taught  in  the  schools,  and 
yet  wish  the  Bible  to  be  used,  wish  the  State  to  give  the  children 
a  religious  education  without  teaching  religion  !  When  I  ask  how 
the  Bible  can  be  taught  without  teaching  religion,  and  how  a  child 
can  have  a  religious  education  without  being  taught  religion,  they 
answer  by  saying,  that  they  "separate  the  feelings,  experience  and 
morals,  the  sentiment  of  religion  from  the  religion  itself  But  this 
is  a  new  kind  of  mental  philosophy  that  I  have  not  studied,  nor  do  I 
believe  that  I  can  comprehend  it.  I  have  been  taught  that  "truth 
was  in  order  to  goodness;"  that  there  is  an  essential  connection  be- 
tween what  a  man  believes  and  practices;  that  a  man  is  responsible 
for  his  belief  as  well  as  for  his  actions;  that  as  a  man  thinketh 


142  THE   BIBLE  AXD   POLITICS. 

in  his  heart,  so  is  he.  I  do  not  know  how  to  teach  religion,  and  yet 
not  teach  it.  Nor  can  I  see  how  it  is  possible  to  separate  precepts 
from  principles.  When  my  child  is  taught  grammar,  I  do  not  sup- 
pose he  is  to  be  taught  'Hhe  feelings,  experience  and  sentiment^' 
of  the  art  of  writing  and  speaking,  without  being  taught  the  funda- 
mental rules  of  the  language.  Does  not  the  teaching  of  astronomy  in- 
clude the  elements,  as  well  as  the  practical  art  of  making  observations 
in  the  heavens?  How  can  the  latter  be  taught  without  the  former? 
How,  then,  are  our  children  to  be  taught  to  be  religious — "  a  know- 
ledge of  the  being  and  attributes  of  God,  regeneration,  the  fall,  the 
doctrine  of  the  atonement,  all  that  is  necessary  for  their  conversion 
and  salvation" — without  teaching  them  religion  ?  For  one,  at  least, 
I  protest  against  having  my  children  taught  any  such  religious  ^'feel- 
ings, experience  and  sentiments"  in  the  Public  Schools.  I  wish 
them,  when  they  are  taught  religion  at  all,  to  know  that  it  is  religion 
they  are  being  taught,  and  to  know  on  what  authority  its  claims  rest, 
and  that  it  be  taught  to  them  as  an  open,  honest,  avowed  system  of 
faith,  knowledge,  experience  and  godliness;  and  not  as  mere  ''feel- 
ings," "sentiments,"  and  the  like,  that  are  smuggled  into  the  school. 
It  is  well  known  that  in  all  our  colleges  and  theological  schools,  that 
mental  and  moral  science  are  essentially  connected,  and  that  our 
lecturers  in  the  schools  of  the  prophets  begin  to  teach  them  Divinity 
by  teaching  them  mental  science. 

There  is  another  view  of  this  subject  that  is  worthy  of  more  ex- 
tended consideration  than  I  can  here  give  it,  and  yet  I  cannot  wholly 
pass  it  over.  It  is  this  :  I  would  not  have  the  school  fund  divided, 
nor  any  sectarianism,  of  any  shape  or  color,  introduced  into  them, 
because  I  regard  the  Public  Schools  as  one  of  the  very  best,  if  not 
altogether  the  best  means  we  have  of  thorougldy  Americanizing  our 
children.  But  this  will  not  be  done  if  the  fund  is  divided,  or  if  such 
religious  rites  are  introduced  as  must  separate  the  schools  into  dis- 
tricts, according  to  their  religions.  The  Public  Schools  are  important 
not  only  because  they  awaken  the  intellects  of  the  children,  but  also 
for  exciting  their  gratitude  to  the  country  that  educates  them — in 
awakening  their  patriotism  and  love  of  home.  I  do  not  then  simply 
mean  that  by  developing  their  minds  they  are  better  prepared  for  the 
pursuits  of  life,  and  the  duties  of  citizenship.  For  though  this  is 
true,  there  is  a  greater  sense  in  which  the  Public  Schools  Ameri- 
canize our  children.  It  is  true  that  every  addition  to  science,  every 
fa-ct,  every  fresh  tnith,  and  every  new  idea  that  is  brought  within 
the  reach  of  our  children  in  the  Public  Schools,  is  a  germ  of  power 
added  to  the  nation.  The  poetry,  eloquence,  grace  of  wit  and  of 
manners,  the  glowing  of  the  imagination,  the  depth  of  thought,  and 
the  discipline  of  the  mind — all  the  acquirements  to  be  had  in  the 
school  room — are  so  much  added  to  our  power  as  peoples,  if  received 
and  improved  with  the  right  moral  dispositions.  But  I  now  refer 
more  particularly  to  the  cultivation  of  kind  feelings,  and  the  growth 
of  school  hoy  friendships,  between  the  children  of  sires  that  warred 


AMERICANIZING   THE  CHILDREN.  143 

against  each  other  under  hostile  banners  in  other  hemispheres.  To 
secure  so  powerful  an  enginery  for  thoroughly  Americanizing  the 
children  of  our  foreign  population,  I  would  remove  from  the  admin- 
istration of  our  Public  Schools  everything  that  is  really  obnoxious  to 
any  religious  sect,  church,  or  denomination.  I  would  have  our 
Public  Schools  stand  on  the  same  great  basis  or  platform  that  our 
federal  government  does — open  alike  to  all  nations  and  all  sects,  and 
favoring  none.  And  I  know  of  no  process — I  believe  there  is  no 
method — by  which  the  children  of  foreigners  may  be  so  rapidly  and 
so  effectually  Americanized  as  in  our  Public  Schools.  And  for  this 
very  reason  I  would  keep  the  Public  Schools  as  free  as  possible  from 
everything  that  has  a  tendency  to  prejudice  foreigners  against  them. 
They  are  our  greatest  institutions  for  naturalizing  and  Americanizing 
them.  The  fusion  of  so  many  different  peoples  must  be  slow,  but  by 
the  help  of  the  press  and  the  pulpit,  and  the  Public  Schools,  it  can 
be  done.  I  cannot  conceive  of  a  more  pleasing  sight  to  an  enlightened 
patriot,  than  to  see  the  children  of  foreigners  and  of  natives,  of 
Protestants  and  Catholics,  gathered  into  the  same  school,  reading  the 
same  books,  and  their  hearts  and  minds  being  opened  and  moulded 
by  the  same  toiling  teachers,  and  left  free  all  this  time  from  the 
bitterness  of  rival  sectarians.  And  think  you  these  children  will  not 
love  each  other  as  brothers,  and  respect  each  other's  opinions  and 
rights  as  men  and  as  citizens,  as  they  jostle  and  elbow  one  another 
through  life.  But  it  is  perfectly  plain,  that  to  Americanize  our 
children  in  this  way,  all  religious  creeds  and  feuds  must  be  strictly 
kept  out  of  the  schools.  It  is  only  a  very  narrow  prejudice,  or  a  very 
bitter  bigotry  that  says  in  reply  to  this,  when  foreigners  come  among 
us,  '^  they  must  do  as  we  do.  They  should  leave  their  religion  and 
politics  at  home."  Why  then  have  we  thrown  our  banners  on  the 
outer  wall,  and  said  to  all  mankind,  come,  and  you  shall  be  equal 
with  us.  We  have  invited  them  to  come,  and  when  they  come,  we 
begin  to  oppress  them  by  violating  our  organic  principles  !  But,  it 
is  said  again,  nothing  will  satisfy  those  who  object  to  our  Protestant 
Bible,  It  is  in  vain  to  try  to  make  American  Christians  out  of  them. 
I  answer,  yes,  it  is  in  vain,  utterly  hopeless,  if  you  p^secute  or  oppress 
them.  But  if  we  do  our  duty,  then  we  are  free  from  farther  respon- 
sibility. We  can  open  the  fountain,  if  we  cannot  compel  them  to 
drink. 

But  my  friends  urge  with  great  zeal,  that  our  Bible  must  be  placed 
in  the  schools,  because  it  has  been  blest  to  so  many  millions,  and  be- 
cause it  has  been  so  blest,  it  must  be  the  Word  of  God,  and  is  the  best 
and  only  proper  translation,  and  must  therefore  be  used  in  the  schools. 
I  believe  it  is  the  Word  of  God,  and  that  it  is  the  best  version  in 
the  world,  and  yet  I  do  not  believe  we  should  compel  men  by  stress 
of  law  to  read  it ;  and  I  do  not  so  believe,  because  the  Word  of  God 
does  not  teach  me  to  do  so.  "  But  millions  are  now  singing  hallelu- 
jahs in  Heaven,"  because  they  had  our  Bible  to  read.  ''  God  has 
honored  and  bl^st  it  to  the  conversion  of  niilUous  of  souls,"  and 


144  THE   BIBLE   AND   POLITICS. 

therefore  it  is  His  Word  and  must  be  placed  in  our  National  Schools. 
I  see  not  the  force  of  this  reasoning.  Is  it  true  that  only  perfect  in- 
fallible agencies  are  used  as  instruments  by  the  Holy  Spirit  for  con- 
verting men  ?  Were  the  Apostles,  who  planted  the  Church  of  Christ 
throughout  the  world  and  converted  so  many  nations  to  God,  perfect 
men?  Did  not  Paul  once  speak  of  being  a  cast-away  himself,  after 
having  been  used  as  the  agent  of  saving  others  by  preaching  the 
Gospel  to  them  ?  Did  not  Balaam  prophecy  goodly  things  of  Jacob, 
and  yet  fall  in  battle,  fighting  against  Israel?  Did  not  Judas  work 
miracles  as  well  as  Peter?  The  fact  that  God  has  used,  has  honored 
and  blest  our  version  to  the  conversion  of  men,  does  not  prove  that 
it  is  a  perfect,  nor  even  the  best  version.  I  think  it  is  the  best  ver- 
sion, but  [  do  not  know  that  any  version  or  manuscript  is  absolutely 
perfect.  But  surely  God  may  use  our  version  for  converting  men  and 
comforting  his  children  without  requiring  us  to  make  our  fellow  men 
read  it.  Nor  does  this  honoring  of  our  translation  prove  that  it  is 
perfect  and  not  sectarian.  Is  not  the  Pilgrim's  Progress  a  sectarian 
book,  and  yet  how  many  souls  have  been  blest  by  reading  it  ?  Must 
it  be  placed  in  the  schools?  Was  not  John  Wesley  a  leading  secta- 
rist  ?  And  yet  he  was  honored  of  God  to  do  a  great  work.  Many 
men  and  many  books  have  been  greatly  useful,  honored  and  blest  of 
God,  that  were  not  perfect.  The  worst  form  of  Christianity  on  earth 
is  unspeakably  better  than  Paganism.  Even  Mohammedanism  is 
better  than  Heathenism.  The  Romish  Missal  and  Douay  version 
have  been  blest  to  many  souls,  and  so  also  the  Episcopal  Prayer 
Book ;  but  does  this  prove  that  it  is  the  only  true  form  of  service, 
and  that  it  must  be  placed  by  the  civil  authorities  in  our  Public 
Schools?  I  am  ama"zed  at  such  pleas.  The  treasure  is  in  earthen 
vessels,  that  the  excellence  may  be  of  God  and  not  of  us.  In  fact, 
I  confess  my  astonishment  at  this  whole  train  of  argument,  which  is 
the  stereotyped  one  all  over  the  country,  for  the  compulsory  use  of 
the  Bible  in  our  National  Schools.  It  runs  in  this  style :  Our  trans- 
lation is  the  inspired  Word  of  God,  a  knowledge  of  it  is  essential  to 
our  morals  and  well  being,  and  to  our  salvation ;  therefore,  it  must  be 
placed  by  law  in*  our  Public  Schools.  But  the  Catholic  says,  our 
version  is  the  inspired  Word  of  God;  and  by  our  laws,  he  has  just  as 
much  right  to  say,  that  his  version  is  the  Word  of  God,  as  we  have 
to  say  that  ours  is  the  Word  of  God,  and  he  has  a  right  to  claim  that 
his  version  is  as  important  to  the  morality  of  the  country  as  ours,  and 
to  ask  the  government  to  do  just  as  much  for  his  Bible  as  we  ask  it 
to  do  for  ours ;  and  so  the  Hebrew,  the  Mormon,  the  new-version 
Baptist,  the  Episcopalian  with  his  Prayer  Book,  and  the  Deist  with 
Hume's  essays,  may  all  come  forward  for  government  patronage.  I 
do  not  say  that  all  these  could  present  equal  claims  as  to  the  intrinsic 
merits  of  their  several  books ;  but  I  do  say,  that  none  of  us  has  any 
right  to  ask  the  government  for  any  decision  of  such  controversies, 
nor  for  any  favors,  and  that  the  government  has  no  power  to  decide 
any  such  claims,  but  must  ignore  them  all  alike.      We  must  not  give 


PATRONAGE   DENIED.  145 

a  handle  to  the  axe.  When  the  Protestant  comes  with  King  James' 
Bible  under  his  arm,  the  Episcopalian  with  his  gold-clasped  Prayer 
Book,  the  Catholic  with  his  velvet  covered  Missal,  and  the  Turk  with 
his  parchment  scroll  containing  the  Koran,  which  he  says  is  God's 
Holy  Book,  and  the  Israelite  with  his  sacred  roll  of  Moses  and 
the  Prophets,  and  knocks  at  the  treasury  door  of  the  government,  or 
calls  at  the  war  office,  for  scrip,  and  purse,  and  sword,  to  sustain  and 
promote  and  propagate  the  religion  of  their  sacred  books ;  and  the 
Deist  stands  by,  laughing  with  scorn  and  saying,  you  are  all  fools, 
fanatics,  hypocrites;  God  has  not  given  any  of  you  a  book,  there  is 
no  Bible — all  we  know  of  God  is  from  reason;  then  what  is  our  gov- 
ernment to  do?  Why,  of  course,  it  says,  gentlemen,  I  do  not  know 
anything  about  your  quarrels ;  I  do  not  know  any  of  your  Bibles. 
t  have  no  religion  myself.  I  leave  all  that  matter  to  your  own  cons- 
ciences. All  I  have  to  do  on  the  subject  is  to  keep  you  from  hang- 
ing, or  imprisoning,  or  burning,  fining  and  whipping  one  another  in 
your  zeal  for  your  several  religions.  Go,  therefore,  and  enjoy  equal 
and  perfect  religious  freedom,  but  do  not  offer  any  violence  to  each 
other,  for  if  you  do,  I  must  punish  you  for  the  violence  -,  not  for 
your  religion  or  the  want  of  it,  but  for  your  trespassing  on  the  rights 
of  your  fellow-citizens. 

I  have  already  said  that  I  regard  many  of  the  advocates  of  the 
views  I  am  opposing  as  honest  and  patriotic  men.  I  do  not  believe 
they  desire  a  union  of  the  Church  and  the  State ;  but,  at  the  same 
time,  all  their  arguments  and  principles  lead  in  that  direction,  and,  in 
my  opinion,  if  carried  out,  must  lead  to  such  a  result,  and  to  great 
social  disturbances  and  the  dishonoring  of  our  holy  religion.  This 
is  not  what  they  wish,  nor  do  they  believe  that  such  is  the  tendency 
of  their  views.  But  neither  does  the  boatman,  in  the  stream  above 
the  cataract,  wish  to  go  over  the  precipice,  but  he  may,  nevertheless, 
allow  himself  to  come  so  near  and  become  so  powerless,  in  the  rush- 
ing, sweeping  waters,  that  he  cannot  help  it.  He  never  intended  to 
be  dashed  to  pieces  in  the  foaming  whirlpool. 

^'  Opposed  to  the  Bible !"  "  An  enemy  to  God's  holy  Word  V* 
NO.  Is  a  man  opposed  to  Jesus  Christ,  and  an  enemy  to  Him,  be- 
cause he  does  not  believe  that  His  kingdom  is  of  this  world,  or  thJit 
it  is  to  be  promoted  by  carnal  weapons — because  he  does  not  believe 
that  Christ  requires  us  to  compel  men,  by  fire  and  sword,  by  fines  or 
imprisonment,  or  other  civil  disabilities,  to  hear  His  blessed  Word 
read  or  preached,  and  to  believe  on  Him,  under  pain  of  death  ?  If 
so,  then  many  of  the  most  godly,  and  pious,  and  able,  and  learned 
men  that  have  ever  lived — men  whose  shoe-latchets  we  are  not  worthy 
to  unloose — have  been  enemies  of  Jesus  Christ. 

Our  conclusion,  then,  is  simply  this :  According  to  our  laws,  and 
according  to  our  understanding  of  the  Gospel,  we  are  not  to  use  any 
means  for  compelling  our  neighbors  to  read  or  hear  the  Bible  read, 
that  are  not  proper  to  get  them  to  hear  the  Gospel  preached.  We 
are  not  to  employ  any  more  or  any  other  kind  of  compulsion  or  coer- 


146  THE  BIBLE   AND   POLITICS, 

cioD;  in  order  to  make  adults  and  children  read  or  hear  the  Word  of 
God,  than  we  may  use  to  induce  them  to  believe  in  Christ.  And 
hence  we  are  opposed  to  any  law  that  may  compel  the  teachers  or 
school  directors  to  use  the  Bible,  contrary  to  their  own  or  to  the  con- 
scientious convictions  of  any  of  the  parents  of  the  children  in  the 
school. 

Indulgent  reader,  if  I  have  your  company  thus  far,  I  beg  to  part 
from  you  by  presenting  a  thought  from  Pliny  the  Younger,  who  says, 
that  writing  a  book  is  like  making  an  entertainment,  where,  though 
every  guest  does  not  taste  every  dish,  yet  they  all  join  in  praising  the 
design  of  the  supper  ;  and  each  one  is  not  the  less  pleased  with  those 
things  in  the  feast  that  are  agreeable  to  his  appetite,  because  there 
are  other  things  that  his  appetite  has  not  relished.  So  I  shall  con- 
sider myself  exceedingly  fortunate  if  I  have  succeeded  in  exciting  in 
your  mind  a  single  thought  that  shall  do  you  good.  If  the  princi- 
ples of  this  Tractate  are  not  true,  I  do  not  wish  them  to  prevail.  If 
they  are  dross,  let  them  be  rejected;  and  if  they  are  true,  then,  I  am 
sure,  that,  like  gold,  they  will  come  out  of  the  fire  all  the  purer  for 
the  trials  that  await  them.  Let  me  say  to  you,  kind  reader,  in  the 
words  of  an  old  friend : 

"  Vive,  vale  !  si  quid  novisti  rectius  istis, 
Candidas  imperii :  si  non,  his  utere  mecum. 

Horace. 

Farewell !  and  if  a  better  system 's  thine, 
Impart  it  frankly,  or  make  use  of  mine." 


WORKS   BY   THE   SAME  AUTHOE, 


AND    FOR    SALE    BY 


H.  H.  BANCROFT  tc  CO. 

MONTaOMERY     STREET. 
JXJ&T    PUBLISHED! 

ESTHER: 

THE    HEBEEW- PERSIAN    QUEEN. 

ft 


DAJ^IEL: 

A    MODEL    FOR    YorXi;     MKX, 
Published  by  Hobert   Carter  k    i:J]iOTHER.s,  New  York. 


THE  ¥ED&E  OF  GOLD: 

Oi.  ACHA^"  lis  EL  DORADO. 

Published  in  Sau  Francisco,  and  also  by  the^^resbyterian  ]^oard 
in  Philadelphi:' 

TMDEAND  LETTERS: 

THEIR  Jot^RX£3^i:?re4s  roi^xd  the  world. 

Delivered  before,  and  published  at  the  request  of,  the  ''Mercantile 
Library  Association  of  Han  Francisco,"  New  York:  Carters. 

THE  GIAIT  JUDGE: 

Or,    SAMSOIS^    THE    HEBRElf    HERCULES. 

Published  in  San  Francisco,  and  also  })y  tlie  Presbyteiian  Board 
in  Philadelphia. 

i  UNIVERSITT 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  ot 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 

Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall, 


l5Har'60AE 


Ri-C'D  LD 


■mi    I960 


23May'65J  0 


REC'D  LD 


MftY2fe'65-llAM 


i^vi 


